On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 02:21:34PM -0800, Brian Winfrey wrote: >> >> I was thinking I didn't need it until the system is live, and it may >> or may not complicate things, and I have had to restart several times >> already. >> >> For example I believe it changes su, so if I need to uninstall it for >> some reason, I will need to restore files it has changed. >> >> I guess the question to ask what is the downside of deferring it? > > If you are following the book, it *installs* su. I presume that > you have some modification to the book to suite the hint. If > everything in your system is only linked against libraries in /lib > and /usr/lib, then the obvious downside is your password storage. > OTOH, if your modification means you rely on libraries in /tools/lib > then your system will be incomplete (broken, at least if you don't > extend $PATH) when you boot it. > > Ultimately, it's your system, so you might need to do some > evaluation to find out what the downside is to *not* following the > book. I remember that, from time to time, people suggest we don't > actually *need* the autotools - it all depends on what you are going > to do with the new LFS system. In my case, I've been playing with > newer desktop versions and definitely needed them to overcome > problems. In a very-limited case you *might* manage to defer > installing shadow, but why take the risk ? > > The more general answer is "FBBG". > > ĸen > -- > das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page >
Unless I hear that someone has done it with no problem, I think I'll follow that rule. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
