Archaic wrote: But back to the original pariah > comment, when dealing with a dependency, it can cause a less than > friendly response when, after several attempts at finding a solution, it > is finally realized (or mentioned) that a necessary portion of LFS was > excluded which would have solved the person's problem before he ever had > a problem. >
Ah! I read Tushar to mean: "Don't ask questions on BLFS-support unless you have built LFS according to the book!". I see now the alternative interpretation. Point taken. As an aside: I think that experimentation with the book(s) is 'A Good Thing (tm)', and even using the support lists to ask for help in such circumstances is OK, **provided** the experiment is declared. Regular respondents can chose to ignore such requests, but are ill advised, I think, to publically condemn it just on those grounds. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
