Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/11/05 19:43 CST: > Once more, for the sake of clarity. The goal of the lfs-alphabetical > branch was *not* solely to make the build alphabetical!
But that is not what folks that have really stopped to consider the ramifications of such a change think. Your proposed build order, and the name, and the reasons you've offered, and the entire discussion lead folks to think otherwise. Just look at the last few comments on this list! > The real thrust behind this research is to have a rationale for each > package -- *why* it's built *when* it's built. IMO, that's 10 times > better than just saying 'eh, the build order is a huge mess, we don't > know why this package is before this other one, but it works so let's > just leave it.' But, as far as I know, nobody except you thinks that. Right now, I think the build order is because it was developed through years of experience, trial and error and testing. And you are suggesting to throw all that out the window and try a new build order, because your (one person mind you) month or two of casually using a new build order produces, what *you* say is a reliable build order. But, what about the thousands of builds before this that have proven that the existing build works, and doesn't really need to be modified? Doesn't that history and years of experience amount to something that should be dealt with before changing? -- 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] 19:44:00 up 78 days, 5:08, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.09, 0.29 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
