[RFC] On LFS' Package Selection Policy

Chris Staub chris at beaker67.com
Fri Aug 5 08:27:36 PDT 2005

Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> On 8/5/05, Jeremy Huntwork <jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>>Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>>>FHS is good, not so sure about LSB since it mandates lot more packages
>>>like PAM which are not in LFS.
>>I didn't read this as "let's go to each of these lists and match
>>precisely what is good in them". I read it as saying, "we have a package
>>under consideration for inclusion - is that package mandated by any of
>>these standards."
> I know, but if the policy states LSB and if the package is mandated by
> LSB, it would be hard to say when someone asks PAM to be included in
> LFS-core.

I think Jeremy means that "is this package in the LSB?" is simply added 
to the list of "possible reasons to add this package to LFS", and I did 
read Matt's original post as simply a list of criteria, not that any one 
of those criteria is, by itself, a guarantee that any package will or 
will not be added.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list