DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Apr 25 22:57:54 PDT 2005

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> To me, even more reason to ditch the old compiler. My understanding
> is that this is a Linux From Scratch project. Providing support for
> non-free binary packages doesn't fall into the project's goals.
> Perhaps, I'm being too short-sighted, but providing support for
> non-free binary packages just seems like something we could avoid
> and still meet the project's goals.

I've always thought of BLFS as a way to guide your LFS to a particular
purpose (other than being able to rebuild itself).  I don't particularly
care about non-free, proprietary, binary-only etc. as far as the book is
concerned.  I do look for availible source code where possible, but it's
not always possible to find an open alternative.  Yeah yeah, find
another goal! ;-)  Take the binary A/V codecs that are used in the book
for instance...though they don't have anything to do with gcc-3.3.

As far as gcc-3.3 deps are concerned, replacements will be here soon, or
at least lets hope so after a year of 3.4! (yeah really it's been just
over a year)  Right now maintenance is not a real issue and it appears
to be helping some, so I'd say leave it in for at least untill time when
a hint can be written and a note placed in the book...or better, the
version specific hint is updated, though AFAIK it hasn't changed except
for version numbers....but that would put the note in chapter 6 (7?) of
LFS, not in BLFS.

-- DJ Lucas

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list