changes for consolidation

Reinhard Mantey RMantey at
Tue Mar 16 11:50:27 PST 2004

On Tuesday 16 March 2004 19:44, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:17:57 +0100 Reinhard <bookreader at> wrote:
> I consider any development in the direction of streamlining BLFS to be used
> for brainless installing of packages with minimal user interaction a bad
> move. 

I totally agree! And if you think, that that was my intention - sorry, but it 
was not - at no point.

I came to LFS to "get" a better distro.

Using Suse for years kept many things hidden - and in the last time it happend 
the same with my windoz-boxes. I installed some rpm's and got a weak system.
That was not acceptable for me - also I have to admit, that Yast does quite 
the best jobs of all package-manager I know.

Well I wanted a better distro, which for me implies, that the system could be 
rebuild any time with the same quality - and that was my intention.
Therefor I spent more time on the scripts and on book investigation, than I 
would have needed to install the packages one by one.

I also think, that Automated LFS is not a project for dumb users, who like to 
support brainless installation.
From my point of view automation is not an issue of brainless usage but for 
quality ensurance.
I admit, that automation invites dumb users doing a brainless installation. 
But you know, there's no light without shadow.

I believe, that if you're not able to rebuild your system, your system is not 
worth calling it stable.

> BLFS is a pick-an-choose book meant to be read by people who do things
> by hand. If you do things by hand, every dependency is an additional burden
> and you want to know about any shortcut available.

I agree. And I think, that doing failures is evident for learning.
But learning the packages will happen on the first run. 
If you have to rebuild your system (partly or entire) there's no much to learn
in doing it again by hand.

> If you want a dependency graph useful for automated processing, create a
> new document.

Sorry, but that's a poor statement. Only little changes are necessary, to fit 
that need - and as I see, I only asked for a bit more consistency.
From my point of view - its a question of quality, that all chapters follow 
the same rules (not even influenced by me).
I did not ask to change any rule of the book.

If your position stands for the whole comunity, I think I have to go back to 
my distro. With this position, an blfs-system could not replace a linux 
system where quality is an issue. I feel very sorry for that.

Kind regards


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list