Moving to new format?

Tushar Teredesai tushar at
Sat Jan 18 15:44:54 PST 2003

Billy O'Connor wrote:

>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
Yep, actually even I am not for an 100% lfs like format for the blfs 
book. My personal preference would be to leave most of the current 
format as is. Except that merge the two sections "Installation" and 
"Explainations" and make them more hint like.

Check out <> for an 
example. The original page is at 

Tushar Teredesai

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