On 6 October 2017 at 17:18, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> Armin K. wrote: > > What you suggested would make blfs books diverge a lot, and that would >> make development harder. That's the same reason many packages are in >> both books, yet not required by systemv book (gperf, attr, acl, libcap, >> expat, xml::parser, etc). You are free to ommit the unnecessary >> packages yourself, if you feel the need. >> > > I agree with your comment about divergence. The other packages you > mention are needed by many packages in BLFS, not just systemd. > > LFS has never been about building a minimal system. For instance, > automake/autoconf are not needed to complete lfs. They are however needed > for several packages in blfs and have been in lfs from the beginning. > Doesn't that statement counter your argument against the inclusion of openssl; you said that it "would be one more file", but it is, surely, a very important file. Alternatively, if openssl is to be left in the BLFS book, can libressl be added in order to extend choice? It seems odd that libressl is included as an alternative requirement on the openssh page, but it doesn't have a page of its own, only a link to the libressl website. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
