LFS and BLFS

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Dec 15 13:13:35 PST 2007


Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2007/12/15, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org>:
> 
>> I can't help but think that something like this would
>> turn BLFS into just another distro. And an exceptionally
>> difficult one at that.
> 
> I think I disagree with "_just_ another distro". It becomes a
> "documented distro".

But is the goal of the project to be a "distro"? Or is
the goal of the project to create a book of popular package
build instructions, to include dependencies? I've always
considered it to be the latter.


>> But you don't understand Ag, the package instructions *do* work.
> 
> Well, maybe. But we don't know that they work, and that's more
> important (but see below - you say that you rely on general public to
> report breakage).

Alexander, sometimes you take things too literally. For
almost all the BLFS package updates I do, I end up using
something from that package in one way or another. So we're
not expecting the general public to report breakage except
in a few special cases where the package cannot be reliably
tested.


>> We are only providing instructions to build the package. If it
>> doesn't work after a successful build, we can only hope that a
>> member of the community lets us know this. If we receive notice
>> that a package does not *work* as designed, then we'll take an
>> appropriate action.
> 
> IMHO, this is slightly inconsistent. What you are trying to say is
> that we receive such notices via the mailing lists and incorporate
> them to the book - i.e., we only act as men in the middle between the
> book and the general public.

Only in a few special cases. As I said, most packages are
expected to work using our instructions.

-- 
Randy



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list