On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 06:35:06PM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: > Define development. We patch the source, so IMO we are doing > 'development' to some extent.
I guess that in the context of building LFS I think of the patch as just another bit of source, and applying the patch to be on a par with unpacking a source archive. (I don't know if I could give a really good reason for thinking that way.) > If you make changes in the build (by modifying auto-tools scripts), > then the auto-tools are required to regenerate the configure script > and makefiles. Although I don't believe that there are any such > changes in current LFS, there have been many in the past. Ah! I didn't know that. That's an excellent reason for keeping them in, even if they could be stripped out of the current LFS. Regards, Jeremy Henty -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
