Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/10/06 12:41 CST: > Those are good picks since there is a lot of linking to these packages > in BLFS. A special policy would have to be approved, though.
It is not so much a policy being approved, it would be more a method of *how to do it*. Would it just be a mention of the stuff that really isn't important to the build, yet you might like to know? Now, don't start saying things like, "Well, I don't build DB or Perl or Readline or ... when I build my LFS". Quite frankly, that doesn't matter if you aren't following the LFS book. Sure, we'd like to help as many as possible, and hope that our book is effective for those other than who've built LFS, but from a maintainability standpoint, it would simply be impossible. Where would it end? Reader X wants LFS package A, B, and C listed in BLFS. Reader Y wants package D, E and F listed. And so forth and so on. -- 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] 13:08:00 up 107 days, 22:32, 3 users, load average: 1.23, 0.88, 0.45 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
