Moving to new format?
billyoc at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Jan 18 13:17:32 PST 2003
tushar at linuxfromscratch.org (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
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 linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-dev