Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/11/05 16:08 CST: > 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.
I suppose what gets me is the push for alphabetical, yet important things (to me) such as the Perl test suite having a hiccup (t/op/magic................................Dying on warning: Can't exec "ps": No such file or directory at op/magic.t line 306.) because the procps package hasn't been built yet goes without concern. I feel that emphasis should go towards these types of issues, yet building in alphabetical order seems counter-productive. I realize it doesn't really matter, but to have a slight hiccup in a test suite that could be avoided (or even mentioned on the Perl page to expect the hiccup) to me is something worthwhile in fixing. I suppose I also don't see the rational in being able to say we build LFS this way (alphabetical) as being a "good" reason for doing it. Yes, it is a reason, but to me it isn't a good reason. Another example is not wanting to put Vim earlier in the build because it doesn't fit the alphabetical mold. To me that is wrong. I build Vim in Chapter 5 just so I have it to examine build logs in Chapter 6. I find Vim much easier to use than 'more' or 'less' to examine and peruse logs. I realize this is probably more personal taste than anything else, but still not building an editor earlier because it isn't in alphabetical order is again, to me, counter-productive. Anyway, please know I'm not trying to discredit the idea or the work you guys have done so far, I'm only expressing opinion for the sake of discussion. -- 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] 16:10:01 up 78 days, 1:34, 3 users, load average: 1.01, 0.90, 0.57 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
