Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > After some thought, I still can't come with a complete, correct and > meaningful > paragraph. The problem is that, while the statements about achievable sizes > are > true, it is technically incorrect to show them as advantages of LFS. In fact, > binary distros are more suitable to such reduction, because they (unlike LFS) > survive removal of gcc painlessly.
I think you are overlooking one of the key advantages of LFS. By showing how everything fits together, we convey the knowledge about what is necessary and what is not. Of course that "necessary" list varies according to the computational need. Do you need perl? gcc? gawk? tar? We provide a foundation from which a user can learn to intelligently make those choices. That is something the I don't think any other "distro" provides. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page