Apologies, I fumbled this reply a moment ago. It wasn't ready and should be removed.
> We've never been completely minimalist. Neither am I! But my mantra is KISS; above impatience. I really don't care about boot times. That's never more than a miniscule fraction of my total wait time. Sytemd definitely violates my idea of KISS! I'm sticking with SysV. Nobody uses my boxes but me. I've never seen any point to extended attributes, nor ACLs. Just more complications for what gain? Why does LFS base need them--the book doesn't explain, > If we were, we'd remove vim, among others. Yeah, I've only used it a few times, under extreme duress. But there needs to be *some* editor in the LFS base, and vim is expected. > I'll note that we do not mention LFS packages in BLFS as dependencies > at all, so there may be some BLFS packages that may cause problems is > you skip some LFS packages. Yes, I read that argument in the May '14 list. But I don't understand the rationale for moving them into the lfs base. I know they, and the XML::Parser, are often needed in BLFS, but agreed with akheizer that isn't enough reason. What is the requirement for attr/acl/libcap in lfs? Systemd was the suggestion I read. But that's not part of lfs--unless that's where LFS is going. Why can't they be installed as part of BLFS? They used to be. > > -- Bruce -- http://www.fastmail.com - A fast, anti-spam email service. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
