On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 03:15:30PM -0700, Archaic wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:53:11AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > > > > On the second thought, I tend to agree that there is no need to use > > config.site in regular LFS, IF a permission is granted to deviate and > > use config.site instead of the official LFS instructions for the purpose > > of building the official LFS LiveCD. > > Sometimes I think you overstress the need for absolute duplication > between the book and the livecd makefiles. If the instructions are the > same, what does it matter if you use config.site and the book doesn't? > As long as changes to the book are accurately tracked, I see no problem > with the makefiles using config.site.
I think he's doing his best to interpret my initial rules set for LiveCD development - namely that the base system of CD needs to match as closely as possible the LFS version it's aimed at supporting. However we have already broken that rule a couple of times in order to better support various locales. In this instance, as well, I don't have a problem with using a config.site as long as the commands are the same as the book and the resultant system can produce that version of LFS without error. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
