Q: why are the auto-tools in LFS and not BLFS?
onepoint at starurchin.org
Sat Feb 28 11:37:23 PST 2009
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 06:35:06PM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Define development. We patch the source, so IMO we are doing
> 'development' to some extent.
I guess that in the context of building LFS I think of the patch as
just another bit of source, and applying the patch to be on a par with
unpacking a source archive. (I don't know if I could give a really
good reason for thinking that way.)
> If you make changes in the build (by modifying auto-tools scripts),
> then the auto-tools are required to regenerate the configure script
> and makefiles. Although I don't believe that there are any such
> changes in current LFS, there have been many in the past.
Ah! I didn't know that. That's an excellent reason for keeping them
in, even if they could be stripped out of the current LFS.
More information about the lfs-support