On 7/28/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > Perhaps we should have a note in the glibc instructions that libiconv > > should not be installed since it is incompatible with glibc. CCing > > lfs-dev for their consideration. > > Well, I'm still sitting firmly on the fence with this one :)
I will try to nudge you a little bit :) > Do we know > roughly how many packages might cause one to think that libiconv is > required? No idea. I do remember this issue cropping up during GNOME-1 days since the GNOME docs used to mention libiconv as a dependency. Have not seen it recently till this e-mail. Lot of GNU packages (including ones installed in LFS) check for libiconv since it is needed for non-glibc based systems. > Here's how I currently see it: > > Arguments for warning in LFS: > > 1. Glibc is installed in LFS > > Arguments against warning in LFS: > > 1. All affected packages are outside LFS There is no good place to warn in BLFS (there is no section "Packages Not to Install", maybe there should be!). Hence, IMO the best option is the package with which it clashes. > 2. The warning in LFS may have been forgotten about by the time someone > comes to install an affected package. We can always point back to the note in LFS and say "See, now you have borked your glibc installation, go and redo LFS" :-) -- 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
