Randy McMurchy wrote:
Then Matt earlier mentioned, "at
least we'll have a good answer for folks that ask why we have the
build order as we do".
However, the build order is good now. It is known to work. If folks
ask, "How did you come up with this build order", the answer is
simply, "This order is known to build successfully". What more needs
to be said?
Well, I'd personally like to know how our current build order took
shape! Unfortunately, the answer to this question lies scattered deep
within _years_ of LFS archives, and I'm not sure that there is any
written rational behind it elsewhere.
I can't really say because I didn't come around till sometime in the 2.x
series IIRC....and was silent until 3.x or so I think. If this question
comes up again, LFS will have a way to show exactly why it's built in
the order shown. IOW: These packages must be built in THIS
order...everything else is okay to just throw in the mix so we chose an
alphabetical listing.
And even that may not be the case still, as something may actually be
required by the later packages that is satisfied in the alphabetical
listing. In the old books, all buildtime program dependancies were
listed...actual programs, not packages or libs IIRC. Take a look at the
old books in the museum for a quick sample, but this was accepted as
enough at the time. Hell at that time, a brute-force rebuild was the
only way to achieve "purity." A lot of the discovery might lay still
within Ryan/Greg's notes from PLFS too (Thanks again for the eye opener
that still holds true years later). Has anyone looked there recently?
Maybe I ansered a question from my first paragraph above?
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
