Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/29/05 11:25 CST: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 06:29:31PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: >>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.
Agreed there. The beginning of Chapter 6 is where you'd want to do it. >>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. Yes, I spoke out strongly against the package-user hint. However, there is a difference between speaking against a specific *method* and speaking against *the method chosen by the community*. One is providing an opinion on *what method* to use, the other *should there be a method*. There is a difference. I spoke out against the particular *method* you were promoting. I could care less if the community does, or does not, choose to install a package management system. I just think that if one is *recommended*, then there should be instructions to install it. And that means LFS instructions, not from a hint. > Perhaps BLFS should remove it then, since it's not really BLFS material. Perhaps so, but we need to finalize this discussion here, and determine what LFS is going to do, before there is anything done in BLFS. I believe you may have misconstrued the meaning of my message. My message was that I believe it is improper for LFS and BLFS to be in direct conflict with their recommendations. -- 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] 11:34:00 up 95 days, 20:58, 3 users, load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.27 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
