Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/05/08 11:22 CST: > What package management requirements the book uses aren't really that > important to me, which is why I didn't answer. I'd much rather just > follow what the community wants.
What Dan said. (as an explanation why I didn't answer as well) I'll continue to do it 'my way'. And that may end up being a really bad thing (for me) if LFS goes the direction where a PM is required. I would have to probably keep my own methods and attempt to update packages using my methods, but try to fudge something that fits the book. So it be known, I'm against PM as something implemented by LFS. There's just too many deviations and alternative choices. Richard's analogy of SysVinit and bootscripts is not the same. There aren't that many init methods, though there is tons of PMs. You cannot compare the two. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 19:57:01 up 17 days, 11:42, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.20, 0.16 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
