#2111: Adding PACO to LFS -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: spinal84 | Owner: [email protected] Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: 7.0 Component: Book | Version: 7.0 Severity: normal | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Comment (by spinal84):
Replying to [comment:14 Bryan Kadzban]: > Just want to comment on that: I don't think it's right. The "package manager" scheme that I use personally is quite easy for me (mostly because I'm used to it) -- "hard", "complicated", and "inconvenient" are all dependent on who's making the decision. What's inconvenient for one person isn't necessarily inconvenient for everyone. If you want to speak grounded about hardness, convenience and complexity you should learn first what is paco, ok? I think you will change your mind about "one person/another person". Just speak about you and it will be truth. > adding paco to the official LFS book as a '''requirement''' would mean that at least one editor (me), and probably a fair number of others, would no longer actually run the real LFS system, because they'd want to use whatever package management scheme (if any!) that they use today. I don't think the book is written mainly for their editors as a "think in itself". I think it's written mostly for linux community. Am I wrong? > I don't think that's good for testing; especially not for testing paco- related issues. :-) What are you speaking about? If you know any paco-related issues why don't you report em? > > Why someone will not want to use paco? > > I'm not sure about anyone else, but I don't want to use it because I already have a package management system (that '''isn't''' paco) that I want to keep using. I don't think I'd ever heard of paco before this ticket was created, actually. :-) Good point. But maybe first give it a try before making grounded conclusions? Maybe it's not so bad ? :-) BTW why do you hesitate to point concretely what your favourite package management system is? > > > LFS should not use any package management scheme. It's not that difficult to simply take whatever package management techique you want and integrate it into your own LFS system. > > > > Continuing your idea: LFS doesn't need grub, sysvinit, vim and many other packages as it's not that difficult to simply take whatever boot loader, initializing system or editor you want and integrate it into your own LFS system. > > That is true, sort of. You need '''some''' bootloader and '''some''' initialization system, though (otherwise your system won't boot), and grub/sysvinit are as good as any other. If a package manager was required to get Linux to boot, then we'd have one system or another in the book already. If you need etherboot then grub is useless for you. If you prefer nano you don't need vim. If you need some kind of editor - use sed, it rocks. Is my idea clear? > ...and besides, vim was in the book when Gerard first wrote it. Do you really think it's a good point? What about this: ...and besides, lilo was in the book when Gerard first wrote it. Gerard is not here. And why you think Gerard wouldn't like paco? > Sysvinit falls into that category as well (I think): it's been in the book from the first version. Again. Do you really think it's a good point? -- Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2111#comment:17> LFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/> Linux From Scratch: Your Distro, Your Rules. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
