Greg Schafer wrote: > I never understood why the BLFS book chose to fly in the > face of conventional upstream wisdom.
IIRC, when we first put mozilla (before firefox and thunderbird existed) in the book, the build process was not quite the same. We also wanted the process to be similar to the process used by all the other packages in the book. The original system recommended use an on-line configuration tool similar to the one available at http://webtools.mozilla.org/build/config.cgi. This requires a BLFS user to make a lot of choices that he may or may not know how to make. For instance, the tool still requires a directory to add --with-system-zlib=/usr/lib when it is not necessary to specify the directory in a LFS system. IMO, the reason the developers recommend the process they do is because the configuration process *is* complex. We basically cut through that complexity for BLFS users to create a system that is quickly understandable for users who know the basic CMMI process. Our system may be a bit less flexible and perhaps is more difficult to determine the proper configuration switches for customization. The bottom line is that our current system is easier than the 'conventional upstream wisdom' if building directly from BLFS. It is non-standard from the developers' viewpoint. The mozilla method is more mature now and has better documentation. It is now time to change BLFS to use it. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
