Include BIND in the LFS documentation?

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Mon Jun 5 16:02:40 PDT 2000

> Does anyone have a good reason that the latest bind (resolver) libraries
> should not be part of the LFS?  I ask because I can argue both that it does
> and does not belong.  I am just wondering what everyone else thinks.  BTW, I
> think that bind should be part of the LFS, but wiser minds may prevail.

I agree on the reasons why and why not to include it. Another reason to
include it would be the utilities that come with bind such as the
nslookup program which I myself use quite frequently.

The book does presently not contain optional parts that were present in
2.2. But major parts will reappear. These include options such as
setting LFS up as a http server, email server, FTP server and setting up
a GUI (meaning X and a window manager or desktop manager). Setting up a
DNS server could be counted as one of the major tasks a Linux system
could be.

Before those are added again, the basic system part will be improved
first and I think we're very close to it. 2.3.5 will probably be the
last version without optional stuff. I hope to re-introduce it with

I'm still giving these things some thought. You all will hear the
outcome in a few weeks.

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Mail archive:
IRC access: server: port: 6667 channel: #LFS
News Reader access:
Unsubscribe: email lfs-discuss-request at and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list