Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at
Mon Oct 31 14:21:02 PST 2005

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 03:15:30PM -0700, Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:53:11AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > 
> > On the second thought, I tend to agree that there is no need to use 
> > in regular LFS, IF a permission is granted to deviate and 
> > use instead of the official LFS instructions for the purpose 
> > of building the official LFS LiveCD.
> Sometimes I think you overstress the need for absolute duplication
> between the book and the livecd makefiles. If the instructions are the
> same, what does it matter if you use and the book doesn't?
> As long as changes to the book are accurately tracked, I see no problem
> with the makefiles using

I think he's doing his best to interpret my initial rules set for LiveCD
development - namely that the base system of CD needs to match as
closely as possible the LFS version it's aimed at supporting. However we
have already broken that rule a couple of times in order to better
support various locales. In this instance, as well, I don't have a
problem with using a as long as the commands are the same as
the book and the resultant system can produce that version of LFS
without error.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list