On 8/4/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not so sure. We have a lot of packages that aren't actually > *required* for the build (autotools, mktemp, zlib, readline, etc.). I > think, as time goes on, that's becoming an increasingly poor criteria to > assess a package on. I'm quite happy to put cracklib in the book > entirely on the basis of its security merits. That's pending further > opinions on the list of course.
Every time such a topic comes up, there is a huge discussion on what is required or not required and finally it turns into a discussion about the goals of LFS. I would like to propose that before adding/removing packages from the book, we should formalize what packages can be included in the book (Jeroen had already started the process of formalizing the process before he left, maybe that should be revived). After formalizing, a decision can be made whether the current packages fit that criteria or not and then decide whether any new packages that are suggested fit in that criteria. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule :-) -- 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
