Some packages I'd like to see added

Randy McMurchy randy at
Thu Dec 30 06:51:53 PST 2004

Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> I don't. And won't. And that is my decision. If you wish to support
>> BLFS issues on irc, feel free to do so. I have much to offer in the
>> way of support, perhaps if you directed some of the questions you
>> get to support, and they're properly answered there, you wouldn't
>> get the questions any more.
>> As a favor, I'm asking you to direct questions you receive on irc
>> to support, where they will be answered and archived.
>> And just so I know, how many BLFS guys are supporting issues using
>> IRC?
> Come on Randy, we are all supposed to be a team here!  It's not 
> important WHERE the support comes from, what's important is that our 
> users get the support they need!

Agreed, and I, for one, am grateful to you and others who will
patiently answer questions over and over on irc, because there's
no archive for users to search to find the answer themselves.

>  *IF* there's something that requires 
> attention in the book, rest assured it WILL be brought to you guy's 
> attention.  But, those of us on the IRC support channel will not ask 
> people to go to the lists when it's something we can answer ourselves - 
> that's just doing a dis-service to the user - making them wait for hours 
> for an answer from the mailing list rather than getting the information 
> they need from us.

Agree again. Though I think it's a stretch to say "hours". Many
questions are answered within minutes, with the bonus of the question
and answer now archived.

> Now, my question to the BLFS developers:  What exactly is BLFS?  Is it 
> hard to install packages, or is it instructions to build packages that 
> make the bare bones LFS system more functional?  At last check, many of 
> the BLFS packages are rather simple builds, but the instructions are 
> still there, so I have always assumed that the goal of BLFS is to 
> provide instructions for a more well-rounded system.  If I'm wrong, then 
> I apologize for the noise in suggesting packages, and also recommend 
> removing those packages that are simple cmmi builds.

I have asked these same questions. And I've received answers. Read
the archives.

Bottom line is this:

What is included in the BLFS book is what editors think should be
there. Some of the packages could go away, because they are easy
cmmi builds, but the dependency list is miles long. The dependency
list alone is what in my mind keeps some packages in the book.

Googling for a package sucks, compared to using BLFS instructions
to find out the download location, dependencies used, etc, etc.


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list