First of all, I'm not intending to make this a pi**ing contest. I'm trying to get an updated version of LFS installed, understanding what the design decisions have been, and making a version I am comfortable with. My mantra is KISS, in the whole system.
> Vim is very powerful. But, you can always use emacs or ed if > you prefer. I've chosen pico or nano in my different versions (LFS-2.1 to 7.2), as easy to use and powerful enough for day to day. (I did use "emacs", back in the day it was a bunch of macros for Teco on RSX-11(M?). That left me with the feeling for what I need to do daily, emacs is heavy overkill.) > When we went to two books, we wanted to keep them as close together as > possible. If you don't want attr/acl/libcap/XML::Parser/intltool, > then don't install them. You probably don't need kbd or kmod either. > If you really want to go small, don't install man-db or man-pages. No, as I said, I don't build minimalist systems. I try to build systems that support me, where things "pull their weight", avoiding both too much "cruft" and "creeping featuritis". To my mind, including stuff in the LFS base to support systemd, when SysV is perfectly satisfactory, used in the LFS bootscripts, AND nothing else in the Spartan LFS base requires them, isn't in keeping with my definition of KISS. But now you've told me their origin, organizationally, I MAY leave leave them until the BLFS part. I'm not quite decided, because creating a fork that drifts farther and farther over time ALSO isn't in keeping with my idea of KISS. > Your distro, your rules. Certainly. So I completely replaced all but a few of the functions in the bootscripts. But one needs to understand the design decisions, so I had to ask, as that one thread left some uncertainties. > Did you see Section v, .Rationale for Packages. and Appendix C, > 'Dependencies' in the Book? No, I did not. Thank you, I will. > If you use ed (I remember that Bill used to use that), then I salute > you. But for any other value of $EDITOR[ยน] I will have to accuse you > of heresy on three counts : heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy > by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. [2] I *did* say I don't build minimalist systems, you quoted it. In my opinion KISS is very much in the *NIX tradition. > Whatever, Your System, Your Rules - but as Bruce noted, things in BLFS > might need the things you were really complaining about. And yes, I > still think they are a waste of space on most of my LFS And the needful ones of them are installed on this here 7.2 system, when I built the BLFS packages. Neither attr, ACLs, or even PAM are, but there's quite a packet of perl modules, to make further package additions simpler. > but it is more important to try to keep our variations together - we > are severely under-staffed. Understandably, and that's where our aims differ. > For most people, the space and extra build time used by these packages > is immaterial. I build LFS systems at considerable expense of my own time, rather than using "kitchen sink distros", generally avoiding most packages I can't see a good use for, to control my "attack surface". > Oh, and Happy Xmas. Thank you, but it could have been happier. > [1] On a freebsd list recently, somebody mentioned using the SYSIN DD > statement in IBM JCL as a minimal editor, but that isn't really > something to do in a 'nix system. And not even on MFT/MVT/MVS systems. DD statements are "Data Definitions", indentifying the sources/destinations of data, files for the most part. Better would be "copy cons: myprog.exe" ;) > [2] Waddya mean, you didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition or Python ? Nor the "full Monty"! -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are -- 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
