On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > <snip /> > > >> Merging the projects is a good idea, but I think, for the sake of > >> customization and flexibility, it will still be good to break down LFS > >> into 'modules' as Alan Lord suggested. > > > > I'm having a problem understanding this concept. If one wants a web > > server, then you only need LFS and a few packages from BLFS. If you > > want a workstation, then you need LFS and quite a few more packages from > > BLFS. What's a "module" besides a list of packages for a particular > > application? BLFS is set up to be able to jump around as necessary. I > > must be missing something because I see a "module" as fundamentally LFS > > and a list of links in BLFS. > > Bruce, my "modular idea was more about "training modules" rather than > sets of packages... > > Here's the original suggestion I made: > > --- > So perhaps the LFS project becomes some sort of "course" (and I use the > term loosely). The "modules" of which, could be something like: > > * Learning the basics (Command Line, cmmi, security, toolchain, blah blah) > > * Scripting/Automating (A subject about how LFS gets built, the tools, > the processes involved etc) [This is where PM would probably go too] > > * Basic Useful Applications (A sort of mini BLFS where we get > networking, X and maybe Firefox/TB type apps installed) > > * Building your Distro (Completing the core build-out adding your chosen > apps and utilities and configuring) > > * Making your Distro distributable (How to make a liveCD of "your > distro", how to make an installer script...)
I think it would be really cool if this is how it worked. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
