On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 08:17:48PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-04-28 at 14:10 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > You don't say why you want to reduce the size. There are many places in
> > /usr/share that can be removed to reduce overall size. You also don't
> > need every package. If you are not going to build packages on the
> > target machine, you don't need gcc, auto*, etc.
>
> Well, you don't *need* auto{conf,make} even if building packages on the
> target machine, of course :-) I still think that auto* and potentially
> libtool too, should be punted over to BLFS, but that's largely because
> of their horrendously long testsuite times.
If testsuite time was the critical decider, gcc-4.8 should be moved
to BLFS ;-)
> Well-behaved/correctly
> packaged projects should have no need for those packages to be
> installed.
>
Yeah, because all packages are well maintained by people who use
up to date linux systems (by definition, RH and debian-stable don't
count, let alone those packages whose developers use a BSD system)
and never have a current release which needs to be fixed for the
toolchain versions in LFS, nor for any other reason.
I take the opposite view - the need to fix packages using patches
which require autotools to be invoked is so frequent that they need
to be in LFS - unless there are the resources to produce, and
maintain, a version of BLFS tied to a specific LFS version.
ĸen
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
