Eric Herman wrote: > Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote: >> I will start to use LFS again, and I will do it for my music studio. >> In the studio box, I find myself compiling packages all the time, >> struggling with library dependencies and the package manager. For me, >> I think that it will actually be easier to use an LFS system in stead > > That is a *very* interesting observation. I hadn't quite noticed that > the music studio was so *typical* of the frustration which drives > people to LFS -- but whatever software we're struggling to compile, > it's a usage pattern I'd bet almost all LFS geeks have seen.
I don't think that many music studio users are using LFS, most of them are using distros, such as 64Studio, Ubuntu Studio and JackLab. They are great, but their libs are often outdated (and patched special ways in order to fit the distro). So when I choose to use the latest version of programs like Ardour, Hydrogen, Linuxsampler and Rosegarden, I often need to let the old libs stay where they are while installing new ones on different places. That is usually ok, but the system will be messed up after a while with different versions of libs here ande there. An LFS system will normally have new libs and allow me to use recent music apps in a more far future. Most people should use a distro, but I can't keep my fingers away from using new apps with much wanted new functions, LFS is perfect in that respect and will as usual provide me with a rock stable system. > I suspect there are many things that we GNU/Linux users could learn by > hanging out with some BSD die-hards. True.. ..and the BSD gang do have one or two things to learn too! :-) Jostein -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
