On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:48:13 -0400 Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I'm a bit hazy on this and don't want to take to time to try to dig through > > the > > archives. However, I think Robert is right. At the time we just wanted to > > promote the tools that are used a lot. I don't think there are any > > technical > > issues that would prevent using the Chapter 5 versions of coreutils or sed > > between coreutils and diffutils. > > No, it's as Dan says. It's all about hard-coded instances of tools that > coreutils provides winding up in installed packages. While I agree that > it may actually be something that should be worked out in the packages > that do the hard-coding, by having those core packages installed early, > we avoid the issue entirely in whatever package may decide to do it. > > As was heavily discussed around the time we did the re-ordering, there's > no technical advantage to building packages in alphabetical order, so > that should not be a high priority. What _is_ important is knowing which > packages should be built first and why. And anything that doesn't > require any special placement can just be done whenever, so for them it > becomes useful to place them in alphabetical order just so that the book > is organized and flows logically (and so an editor knows where to place > any new additions). > > -- > JH This is probably not that important, but if there are no 'prior' dependencies in a number of packages, the you could exploit parallelism in the build to speed it up. Not that I do it, nor know anyone who does. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
