LFS 5.0 is a serious problem

Shane Shields locutus at all.at
Tue Nov 18 04:44:14 PST 2003


"^(o,o)^ Turk2000" <acnrvi at tin.it> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.40.0311180746410.18866-100000 at ferocious.c3popov.ru...
>
>  Whi? This procedure took about 40% less time than LFS 5.0 traditional.
> Now I have the whole suite updated at november 2003. I'm not going to
> polemize but i think an excellent book as LFS should report both static
> and dynamic methods.

Shortcuts always take less time in the short run but lead to problems on the
long run. By taking this shortcut, yes you do have a working linux system
but is it correct? If you understand the reasons why the LFS 5.0 method is
used you would be able to answer yourself that your system is not correctly
built. People who take shortcuts dont understand the road. Its your distro
so its your rules. I also dont build my systems entirely by the book but I
understand every step and why it was chosen. My build methods follow the
book and my differences are minor. If something goes wrong I can fix it.
>From your comments and attitude you dont understand every step and you dont
want to understand why thus defeating the books main purpose of education.
Your build method, although workable has problems and was dropped for very
specific reasons. When you realise what those reasons are you will also
realise that LFS 5.0 is not the serious problem here.

My apologies to all for this large and if taken the wrong way flamable post.
Ive had my say and wont say anything more.

-- 
Shane Shields

Registered LFS Compiler: 7582
To drink the WINE of success you must first seek the sayings of source

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be charged a
$25 fee for network traffic and computing time.  By extracting my address
from this message, its header, or any web site showing my email address
either in literal or aggregate form, you agree to these terms.




More information about the lfs-support mailing list