Matthew Burgess wrote: > I'm inclined to agree with Randy here, in that as we don't modify the > upstream sources at all, there's no need to 'LFS' in the version string. > That, to me, suggests that there's something LFS specific about the sources. > I'd think it would suggest the same to upstream as well, such that should an > LFS user or developer provide them with a bug report containing that string, > they may well direct users back to lfs-dev based on that assumption.
I can see your point, but just to be a Devil's advocate here, while there's no modifications to the sources, there is a definite standard build instruction which affects the end result very much. If another distro were to build Glibc without any modifications, a label of some sort is still appropriate because they _way_ they build it is specific to their distro and identifies the resultant package with those build options. We've gone a long time saying that we aren't a distro. But in a sense we are. The book is _very_ specific as to its instructions. If you follow it you have an LFS system. (We even have our own bootscripts!). If you don't follow it you have either a mess or some sort of your own quasi-ma-jig distro type thingy. At the least, presenting an option like this demonstrates to the reader just a little bit more about customizing their build. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
