Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/04/05 21:34 CST: > If a package is going to be added with the note that's it's not needed > or can be skipped, it does not belong in LFS.
Exactly. That is why I came back on Jeremy's message about this. However, he has not replied, so I don't know what to think of his thoughts. It is hard to take somebody serious when they sit on the fence and don't really give an honest answer. "By all mean add it to LFS, only under the condition there is a clause that says it is optional, and may be skipped if desired" This can be applied to many of the LFS packages. It is a meaningless suggestion, as this is not the way it is done in LFS. What I believe this thread is about is adding this package to LFS, "Yes" or "No". There really is no middle ground. What I believe folks should do is too simply agree with the proposal, or provide an argument against it. So far, there's only been positives, folks sitting on the fence not contributing a rebuttal notwithstanding. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 21:38:00 up 124 days, 21:11, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.08, 0.30 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
