[lfs-dev] resizecons : a proposal
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu May 17 15:05:31 PDT 2012
> "Oh, Gerard says it's not a minimal system.
That is correct. We could remove several things.
> "He says it's a full-fledged dev system."
No, that's not true. It's a standard base from which to build a full-fledged
system. You have to decide what is full-fledged for yourself. A server is very
different from a workstation.
> Which I would claim in 2012 is completely bull. How many devs do you know
> dev straight on the console? Of the oft-quoted tens-of-thousands who've
> downloaded LFS, what percentage of them develop on the console?
Actually, I do a lot via ssh which from the LFS system's point of view is little
more than a console, but from my point of view is a window in a graphical
screen. Occasionally I need to do a little at the console, but not often.
> What, exactly, is the technical rationale for putting resizecons in LFS? Or,
> marketing rationale--if the answer is going to be in terms of an identifiable
> population that uses the console to dev in any significant way--because
> there's already a working console. What exactly is the value proposition (in
> terms of time spent) in making the console slightly (or even a lot) better?
AFAIK, resizecons is a part of kbd. I don't use kbd, but some do for
internationalization. When installing a package, we generally make it as
complete as we can.
More information about the lfs-dev