Petrus wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:36 -0500 > Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've been looking at LSB and in running a couple of basic checks find >> that we have some missing libraries and programs in LFS/BLFS to get >> to compliance. The discussion below is only a start. There may be >> more needed after I get their more comprehensive test suite running. > > Why on Earth do you care about LSB compliance?
Because the mainline distros do. There will be no requirement. If a user wishes, he can make it compliant. > The LSB is for the "user friendly," (ergo, bloated, flakey, chronically > unstable crap with apes Windows for end users, but doesn't do anything > genuinely useful) distro crowd. > > Being compliant with that would mean using RPM by default, as well > as needing X and related packages as part of a base install, as well. I means having RPM available. It doesn't mean a user has to use it for normal builds. I certainly won't use it for any package in LFS/BLFS. > You are *not* going to sell out and degenerate into lowest common > denominator, mindless end-user garbage while I have anything to say > about it, LFS. The vegetative, ex-Windows, "Barney and Friends" > demographic already have Ubuntu; they are *not* going to take over the > entire world, damn it. Calm down. You are misreading the intent. Adding documentation is good. After all it is still "Your distro, your rules." > I also refuse to retreat to OpenBSD and use that as my only > operating system, simply because Canonical have managed to convince > everyone else in the FOSS ecosystem, to commit to fecal matter as the > ideal end goal of software development. > > Up until this point, anyway, this project has had standards, and if > you've forgotten about those, perhaps we need to resurrect Gerard to > remind you of them. > > One of said standards is that the only things LFS includes, are those > elements that are necessary to produce:- > > a) A bootable *console* system. X is in BLFS, or our own answer to > ports, where it belongs. Actually, almost all of LFS is required for LSB. About the only changes I can think of right now for LFS is to build ncurses in addition to ncursesw. That's already in the book. I'd only need to add a little text about it. > b) At least a good percentage (if not all of it) of the Single UNIX > Specification text toolchain, including what is needed to compile other > applications, and NOTHING ELSE. > > Not X. Not Gnome. Not any amount of other broken, bloated, useless, > brightly coloured garbage which ultimately doesn't do anything other > than either decrease stability, or generate superficial appeal with > people who are too stupid or ignorant to know better. If nothing else, it will point out the differences between an LFS system and a commercial distro. The biggest changes will be to BLFS and that will only be some text and adding a few packages. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
