On November 1, 2016 2:36:46 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: >Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:52 PM Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:50 PM Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Did you see the Preface? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/prologue/package-choices.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hmm, actually, it does seem like there could be some improvement >there. >>> For >>>> example, the preface tells me what the Acl and Attr package do, but >it >>>> doesn't say anything about why they are now in the book. Is there >>> something >>>> that needs these features? Did the editors just feel this makes the >>> system >>>> more 'complete'? Some packages do have what is more like a >rationale, but >>>> others are a little vague. >>>> >>>> Another example: expat is included because it's a dependency of the >>>> XML::Parser Perl module. But the rationale for that module only >says that >>>> it's an interface to the expat library. I'm left with no clue as to >why >>>> either are needed. >>> >>> Some time ago we decided to make the sysv and systemd books as >compatible >>> as possible, Originally we needed to add 8 packages for systemd. >We left >>> out dbus and systemd from the sysv version of the book, but left the >>> others. >>> >>> As you know, LFS is not about building a minimal system. There are >some >>> packages that could be left out of sysv (e.g. acl) or exchanged for >light >>> weight packages (e.g. vim). What we have is a compromise that >allows a >>> user to customize a system via BLFS. >>> >> >> Yep, I understand. My intention wasn't to suggest what should or >shouldn't >> be in the book. My point is that it would be nice to have those >reasons >> mentioned within the book itself, for instructional purposes. :) >> >> As you said, the point isn't necessarily to produce a minimal system, >but >> it _is_ supposed to be about teaching, and advanced users should be >able to >> make informed decisions about how and where to modify the >instructions for >> their own purposes. So with that in mind, just a little bit more >verbosity >> into the rationale in the book itself would be really helpful. >> >> Anyway, it's really just a suggestion. If you feel the information >provided >> is sufficient, feel free to ignore me. :) > >Suggestions are welcome, but I'd prefer something more explicit.
That's worth reviewing from that POV. I'd like to go over it a bit next week or early the following week (when I start my next iteration for the .la files and remaining static libraries), and post my thoughts. Jeremy, any additional input would be helpful... Especially when you ask "why in the heck would that be in LFS now?" :-) TIA --DJ -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
