Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:05 CST: > Not surprised. :) Although, giving some reasons for that stance would be > appreciated.
Because LFS is all about "Your Distro, Your Rules". There are many package management systems. To employ one as the standard for LFS purposes defeats the whole purpose of "choice". LFS should continue to offer a no-frills, base system that works, without resorting to gimmicks and other ploys with the notion that it would "broaden the horizons" of users. Users need to be able to determine what is best for themselves, not be told what system (of many) they need to use for package management. Users should be advised as to what is available, how to research and make a wise decision, and then employ what works for them. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 21:09:01 up 61 days, 6:33, 3 users, load average: 1.10, 0.86, 0.48 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
