On 7/19/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having said that, does anyone know for definite whether anything in LFS > requires flex anymore, now that we're using FSF binutils again? > Playing devil's advocate here, maybe we could kick this package over the > fence to BLFS and let you guys deal with the pain it causes? :) > Flex is mentioned as a dependency for some packages.
If you really want to slim down LFS, I would propose sending over autoconf, automake, & libtool to BLFS. Reasons: * Not all packages out there are compatible with the latest version of autotools, so even if a patch required running autoreconf, it would probably bomb out since autotools are not exactly known for backward compatibility. * There have rarely been patches that need running autotools. In the future if any patch requires it, we can probably get by using other hacks. * It is only useful for package maintainers. --Tushar. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
