Randy McMurchy wrote: > I am all for documenting which packages rely on one another. However, > to use the excuse that the changes to build in alphabetical order > make LFS more "technically accurate" is in my opinion absurd. If the
If it was strictly alphabetical, I would agree. You might catch the spirit of the idea a bit more if you re-read the bug from the first entry. http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684 It's not about alphebatizing - it's about having a sane rationale for the order of packages built. Where it doesn't matter what order (which happens to be on quite a few packages...) it becomes better organized by having them in alphabetical order. Also some dependencies are worked out simply by placing them in alphabetical order. And absolutely all of it will be documented. Again, all of the above was said in the sake of making the concept entirely clear to anyone who may not have been following up to now. If you don't agree, you don't agree. Your comments are still welcome because we need to see how many people like this idea, and how many do not. Thanks. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
