Tushar Teredesai wrote:
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.
Right, my thought on this was that a note could be put on each of the
packages that are known to mention a libiconv requirement in their
README or other docs. As you state that this might in fact affect LFS
packages too, I'm not sure I'm going to pursue that particular line of
thinking any further :)
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" :-)
Well, I suppose there's plenty of other places along the LFS/BLFS way
where we provide folks with (more than) enough rope to hang themselves
with...this is one more I guess :) If you can think of suitable wording
for the Glibc page in LFS, I don't mind adding it. I know that's more
my job than yours, but I'm not fully up to speed on the exact issues
involved.
Cheers,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
