On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:11:56AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Simon Geard wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:50 -0500, Michael Shell wrote: > >> Maybe in the future there will be a demand for a LFS level between > >> LFS and BLFS. (e.g., no Gnome or KDE stuff, except for a few basic > >> libraries required by many non-Gnome applications) > > > > Problem is, that's a *very* hazy line. Both glib and gtk+ are Gnome > > packages - developed by the same people, released on the same schedules. > > But they're also used by packages like gvim that don't use any of the > > rest of Gnome. So do they go in the BLFS-Gnome book, or the basic one? > > That's my problem too. I once thought that BLFS should be broken up, > but the dependencies made the packages just too interrelated. > > -- Bruce > > -- I've followed this thread with interest. The increased interdependency issue is something that has bugged me for some time. To pursue my interests, I truly don't need a graphical environment, but when I do use one I try to make it as lean as possible. But a lean graphical environment has almost become an oxymoron.
To use a program that interests me ,such as the afore mentioned Inkscape , I have to install programs and libraries that I don't want or need and won't use out of the context of the program. Yasm ? I checked out Mplayer svn last week and configure bailed out with the warning : Error: yasm not found, use --yasm='' if you really want to compile without The implication was that I would be an utter fool to continue without the benefit of this program that was previously not needed. I recklessly proceeded and then watched Iron Man2 and if there was any degradation of performance , I couldn't tell it. I was, however, disappointed with Iron Man 2. Mike Hollis -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
