LFS and BLFS

Ag. D. Hatzimanikas a.hatzim at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 01:51:10 PST 2007


On Sat, Dec 15, at 01:26 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2007/12/15, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com>:
> > The major thing that makes LFS a bit easier to maintain is the fact that
> > there are only about 50 packages in LFS vs about 300 in BLFS.
> 
> Not only that. LFS has no options, and BLFS has a lot of them. E.g.,
> on (now commented out) Xfce page, one can start the build with or
> without HAL and policy-kit. Thus, strictly speaking, an editor has to
> test both possibilities and provide instructions for both of them
> (i.e., show how to mount removable volumes with the correct options
> and how to shut down the system - I did this only in one case, because
> for me HAL integration is broken beyond repair when mounting removable
> media and because policy-kit is not in the book). That's a lot more
> work than in LFS. Adding a section about the configurations (i.e.:
> actually used dependencies and actually passed ./configure switches)
> tested by BLFS editors and known bugs in them would help.
> 
Yes thats the truth.
Example one. I spend much of my time yesterday to check the pdf generation in
mutt.

Example two. I didn't check the --enable-exhaustive-tests in flac, when
--disable-thorough-tests took me 8 sbu to complete thus the text in the
flac page about "up to 300 SBUs) and use about 375 MB of disk space" is 
inaccurate.
 
-- 
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/Hacking



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list