On 12/11/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
There are reasons. I know Greg opened that bug, but it was his and Ryan's own work on PLFS, using ICA that determined a lot of the ordering. Damned archives are too big! I knew I should have bookmarked more things last time I did this. I'll get links soon. > > Jeremy, I think that a better goal would be to resurrect the purity > > tests and see how current LFS stacks up. I'll be glad to help on > > this. I have slow hardware, so doing a complete LFS is an all day > > Sure. But I would rather do purity tests on the alphabetical. Current > LFS is broken in that no one knows why things are done the way they are. > It's a ridiculous position for this project to be in, really. OK, now I see where me and you are having the disconnect. We're both interested in tracking down the reasons for the build order and putting them in such a way that provides the greatest robustness and documents its exact position. However, I think that making the changes and then testing is going to add way too many variables to the test. Starting from a known good recipe and slowly altering would seem to be a more prudent way, to me. What you're suggesting is completely changing the build (arbitrarily making it alphabetical) and changing it until it becomes pure? Well, it's still crazy, but it's starting to make more sense. I still think it would be worthwhile to do the purity test on current LFS to at least know where the LFS-newbuildorder branch stacks up. Maybe it should be called Ordered LFS or something. Well, count me in! Doing the purity tests and figuring out all the niggles of this baby sounds like a lot of fun. (Man, when did I become such a nerd?) I still plan on doing a current LFS ICA test to see where it stands, but what you and Chris have done seems like a good jumping off point. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
