Chris Staub wrote these words on 11/25/05 11:25 CST: > Well, I mean for now at least. :) I mainly said that because I've been > mentioning removing autotools many, many times (mainly in the chat room) > and nobody really gave a reason why not to (except the general > "well-rounded development environment"). I think I actually have used > them once, to build the "powersave" program for my laptop, but I haven't > needed them for anything else (that I know of...). But if you believe > they're needed often enough to warrant inclusion in the book, that's > fine...it's not like they take huge amounts of space...
The most compelling reason I see is what Gerard (and Bruce) said (paraphrased): The packages are expected to be there. Search the archives for a thread in the last few months where this was discussed. Bruce went on to mention that supporting it in LFS was prudent as there are so few packages compared to BLFS, and manpower-wise it seems easier to keep in in LFS. Additionally, there are package in BLFS which require the autotools. Furthermore, if you start thinking about packages to pull from LFS, then you need to start looking at Perl as well. Where do you stop? -- 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] 11:31:00 up 61 days, 20:55, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.28, 0.48 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
