Chris Staub wrote: > On the other hand, adding dependency info about LFS packages to BLFS now > would make things somewhat easier when an LFS package is removed or > replaced. Perhaps, to cover people who don't build every LFS package as > well as the future possibility of an LFS package being remove or > replaced, a certain minimal number of packages could be considered to be > obviously necessary for a working linux system capable of building > additional software from source - glibc, gcc, binutils, make (you could > also add coreutils, gawk, patch, bash, grep, and sed, which are also > needed to compile most packages, and gzip, bzip2, and tar, for obvious > reasons)- and don't list those dependencies, but list everything else.
BLFS can't do everything. We *have* to make some simplifying assumptions in order to get the job done. Assuming all that packages in LFS is one of those assumptions and probably won't change. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
