Q: why are the auto-tools in LFS and not BLFS?

Jeremy Henty 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.


Jeremy Henty

More information about the lfs-support mailing list