On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 06:29:31PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: [snip] > I'm not sure the BLFS information should change, as it is my (and > I believe other editor's) opinion that it really isn't our place to > recommend one piece of software, or methodology, over another. I > believe that if we (LFS) are going to present something then either:
I think we need to bring something up in LFS. If a user decides he wants to use a package manager, he's not going to want to find out about his options *after* he's already built his core system and moved on to BLFS. The minute a user starts building packages that will be in the final system, he should be able to use a package manager, if he so desires. > 1) Recommend it, put it in the book, with instructions how to do it, > a la all the packages in LFS. You realize, don't you, that this is exactly what I suggested earlier? You (and others) spoke out against it pretty strongly. > 2) Present the alternatives and let the readers make a choice. > > 3) Simply mention the guiding philosophy and let readers find > different solutions and choose what works for them. > > I realize this isn't a great big issue, I just don't like the fact > that it appears LFS and BLFS are in direct conflict on this issue. Perhaps BLFS should remove it then, since it's not really BLFS material. Again, if a user is going to use package management they're going to want to do that from the very beginning, in LFS-land. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
