Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I've been investigating the Linux Standards Base core specification.
> 3. For the full spec, we also need libpam. Does this LSB core requirement > justify promoting PAM from BLFS to LFS? Upon further review, the answer to this should be no. I've looked at the Commands and Utilities required for the Base Core Specification http://dev.linux-foundation.org/betaspecs/booksets/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/toccommand.html and it includes several programs that we purposely do not include in LFS. These include, sendmail, lpr, cpio, crontab, at, install_initd, and remove_initd. There is also an implied requirement for either rpm or dpkg. Clearly, the responsibility for making an LFS installation LSB compliant lies in the area of BLFS. I do think a page in LFS with an introduction to LSB would be appropriate, but the details of getting even base specification compliance exceed what we do in LFS. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
