Moving to new format?

Billy O'Connor billyoc at
Sat Jan 18 13:17:32 PST 2003

tushar at (Tushar Teredesai) writes:

>>I don't feel this would be a good format for BLFS.  BLFS installs
>>packages that are quite a bit more complicated than the ones in the
>>LFS book.  Some of the more complicated packages would have build
>>commands farther apart than I'd like to see them.
> That's the point of the re-org, not to provide cut-paste style
> commands but provide more information in what is happening and to
> provide options. The way it currently is it more resembles a build
> script not a book. Compare an hint with its corresponding blfs-book
> page, the hint is always easier to understand and the user can
> customize the building of the package to his/her requirement. The
> reorg actually makes more sense for the blfs-book then the
> lfs-book. Most of the lfs packages don't have a wide variety of
> options that blfs packages have.

The problem with trying to force the new LFS book format onto BLFS, as
I  see it,  is that  the format  was designed  for different  types of
packages.   All of  the  LFS packages  follow  more or  less the  same
install format, ./configure && make && make install, with a few slight
deviations.  Many of  the packages that we're installing  in BLFS have
quite  complicated  build  instructions,  and  even  more  complicated
configuration instructions.

Also, the new LFS format  presents much *less* information to the user
as they read along and install the packages, if anyone hasn't noticed.
I don't want  to hide away valuable information  about the contents of
the packages I'm writing about in an appendix that may or may not ever
be  looked  at,  I want  it  right  on  the  same  page as  the  build

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list