Randy McMurchy wrote: > But that is not what folks that have really stopped to consider > the ramifications of such a change think. Your proposed build order, > and the name, and the reasons you've offered, and the entire > discussion lead folks to think otherwise. Just look at the last > few comments on this list!
Then it is my fault for not being clear. And it is the readers' faults for not going and reading the bug and original thread to which I posted links. > But, as far as I know, nobody except you thinks that. Right now, > I think the build order is because it was developed through years > of experience, trial and error and testing. And you are suggesting > to throw all that out the window and try a new build order, because > your (one person mind you) month or two of casually using a new build > order produces, what *you* say is a reliable build order. There are others, but they need to speak up. :/ I'm pretty sure Chris Staub agrees with me as he's done the majority of work on this. I have a feeling (though I could be wrong) that Greg Schafer agrees with me, seeing as how he's the one that opened the bug. > But, what about the thousands of builds before this that have proven > that the existing build works, and doesn't really need to be modified? > > Doesn't that history and years of experience amount to something > that should be dealt with before changing? I would agree more readily with you if LFS never changed. But it does -- it's a growing and changing beast and it's nowhere near what it was when it was started. And the build order has become fragmented -- one package put in, a couple taken out, two more put in here, this one now depends on this other package, etc, etc. LFS is *not* what it once was and the historical purity and accuracy of it drifts. You were right in your other assessment. We need a good QA process. One that takes the build order into account and that can justify it regularly. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
