taipan wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The implication of going to DESTDIR for LFS would imply doing the same
>> for BLFS. Some of the BLFS packages are not DESTDIR friendly. I can't
>> remember which ones off the top of my head, but I do recall some that
>> ig
>
>-- Bruce
Openssl springs instantly to mind. If i recall correctly, i also had
difficulties with shadow in LFS itself (sorry, it's been a while)...
taipan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
n approach in more
regular builds, but my lack of scripting skills & inexperience in
identifying non-compliant packages means i can't currently automate the
process to a workable degree.
A branch that helps me reach such an objective would be a *Godsend* !
taipan
--
http://lin
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> The more we discuss it, the more PM becomes a focal point.
>
> We need a clearly defined list of pros, cons and technical explanations
> plus their limitations of each viable choice - all the information that
> a user needs to make an informed decision while keeping in m
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> taipan wrote:
>>> (X) Other # Portage, just because it's the native system
>
> Isn't this "Installation script tracing with some other tool" + a unique
> build
> system?
>
"Installation script tracing",
s learning another language/syntax besides bash shell syntax
> [ ] Exists at all
>
Besides voicing my own individual eagerness for PM in LFS, i don't know
how useful this will be, but am interested in finding out...
taipan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
the collective wisdom
that reached this conclusion...
...However, i can't help thinking that the emotion-based responses
voiced thus far might be indicative of a general trend, & this could
impact LFS as a whole if RPM was settled upon - it might be unfair, but
it's also worth b
Robert Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday 01 March 2008 08:59:13 taipan wrote:
>> Looks about right to my unskilled eye, but i'd say the 'linearity' of
>> modules 1 & 2 would be a bit trickier to implement than it initially
>> appears...
>>
>> If yo
fact it would be welcomed. But i can envisage
such an approach driving away the sort of people who have the mindset of
"yeah, yeah, just tell me where the 'GO' button is so i can build the
thing!".
Does LFS want to cater to as wide an audience as possible, or would it
be worthwh
..Educational *AND* with the potential to spread the workload of
maintaining the book(s) & build-script repositories (if such things came
into existence) by developing more developers.
If & when i become any more coherent, i'll be sure to let you know... ;)
taipan
--
h
10 matches
Mail list logo
