On 11/12/2016, Daniel Schepler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Barius Drubeck <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On your switch from patching to packaging you lost me, however. > > All I was trying to say is that in the case of some software that doesn't > compile against the latest versions of the toolchain and other > dependencies, my first choice would be to avoid shipping it as part of the > distribution. I was just giving mozjs-17.0.0 and openjade as two examples
OK, I get it. Indeed, you will undoubtedly encounter problematic packages that don't conform to your policy. Either because of lack of maintenance like those 2 examples or because of licensing (e.g. non-opensource drivers essential for your hardware). At that point one has to make choices: If one goes for zero compromise on one's policy (or ones principles) those packages have to be excluded. Or one can approach it pragmatically and weigh up the merits of each such package - it's usefulness/necessity vs. the extent to which it violates the policy. Anyway sounds like your distro is coming on nicely. FWIW, I wouldn't trust my kernel config to an expect script. I tend to start from a working config (or default) and tune it from there. Cut out the obscure crap I will never use and add some cool things I'd like to try (as module if possible). I find it worth the effort to go through the ncurses menuconfig thoroughly. The interactive Q&A config used to be long but doable, now it's grown too much to do that IMO. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-chat FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
