Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 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 > That makes a lot of sense Bruce. I agree with you that going full LSB is beyond what the base book is after based on this information. Would you suggest a specific section in the BLFS book about LSB and then steps to bring a machine into line? I am not a fan of requiring rpm or dpkg; seems the distros are pushing their weight around on that one. Then again, we can provide the steps to install them and if you happen to need to install something from rpm or deb then you have the tools to do so.
James -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
