Randy McMurchy wrote: > Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/10/06 07:59 CST: > > >>I'm in that minority too. I haven't suggested it because I know that >>BLFS always assumes that you have a base LFS system including every >>package in LFS, but it would still be nice to have all the dependency >>information. Also, you'd probably have to draw a line somewhere as far >>as how many dependencies you list - for example, do you really need to >>list GCC, make, and glibc for every BLFS package? > > > I don't know how Bruce would feel about it, but I too think there > would be educational benefit in knowing what core LFS dependencies > there are for each package. Having a section in the dependencies > section title "LFS Programs". > > Problem is, it is just not doable. For many reasons. Richard touched > on some of them. Who has the time to determine LFS dependencies for > almost 400 packages? > > And what do you do here: > > The configure.log says that it looked for, and found, bison. But > does it really need it? If it didn't find it, would the package > still compile. Only renaming the bison files and rerunning would > tell you. Now, that's one program. There's probably up to 10 or > more for each package. > > It is simply too much of an arduous task.
I agree that there is *some* educational benefit, but really not that much and not that important. The info really wouldn't be very useful in the BLFS context as the vast majority of users would have all of LFS installed anyway. The effort required would be *far* more than its value. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
