Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 12/29/05 11:57 CST: > How about moving the entire package management section from BLFS to > LFS? I don't remember why I added the page to BLFS and not to LFS.
Yes, that is probably best. As has been said by everyone, package management is something that needs to be implemented at the beginning of Chapter 6 in LFS. I think everyone is in agreement there. >>Yes, I spoke out strongly against the package-user hint. > > And the fake root approach too :) And I'm leaning to saying I was wrong about arguing against that type of installation. It would suffice as package management, as well as protecting users against overwriting files and what have you. Unlike some, I don't have a problem admitting when I was wrong. Sometimes, after reflection on things, doing a little research and listening more to others, one's outlook on something can change. I believe it to be healthy to change one's mind and "come over to the other side". I believe in this instance, my take on fake root has changed. I'm thinking it would be a good thing. Only problem is in BLFS, where some packages don't/won't work with a fake root installation method. -- 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] 11:59:00 up 95 days, 21:23, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.07 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
