[lfs-dev] resizecons : a proposal

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu May 17 15:05:31 PDT 2012

Qrux wrote:

> "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.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list