Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > 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.' Note, too that in the proposed branch and build order > *all* dependencies will be listed - even the ones that are satisfied by > the alphabetical order. Nothing will be unknown.
Sorry Jeremy. We will have to A2D on this one. The rationale that we came up with an empirical order that works is, IMO, quite valid. It is not a mess, it is one that works. Others may work too, but I have to ask "so what?" I don't see a fundamental issue here that says we must list each and every dependency for every package. In BLFS, we do spend a lot of time determining dependencies, but we also make the assumption that the LFS packages are installed. The LFS dependencies are not listed for each package. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
