Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on June 06, 2005 07:34 PM
Obviously, you completely missed the point of LFS, like you say : "I don't see the real advantage there". The point is the control and the learning experience BTW, which are unrivaled in LFS. There is another project, named DIY Linux, that is an LFS++, even more optimized. And you are wrong, everyone does not end up with a sysvinit type environment : I have a LFS based system since 2001, and I run with simpleinit-msb since I started it. When most people still complain about complexicity of boot scripts, parallelisation of boot scripts, I have all that since 2001. Perhaps now you can start to understand the level of control LFS gives you.
It's amazing you don't see the difference between using SRPMS and bash scripts. Anyway, people like me do not use bash scripts, they use nALFS, and use paco in their XML file as package management. It's WAY easier to make a XML file for nALFS (I have one template for my XML files, and do everything with it) than a SRPMS, and no need for a complicated database tool. And with LFS, you get everything as it was intended by the original authors. So basically, you rarely have a problem. Of course, when you're bleeding edge, you have to make some patches here and there.
The only time consuming task with LFS, is when you start. You have to learn and write your XML files for nALFS. And then, it's very fast. For example, updating KDE for me is a matter of modifying the version numbers in my XML package file, then launch nALFS, and install what I called "KDE->base". Then it downloads, compile and install everything (and stops if there is an error). I get KDE entirely compiled the day after its released, generally speaking.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Source-based "barebones" distros
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 06, 2005 07:34 PMIt's amazing you don't see the difference between using SRPMS and bash scripts. Anyway, people like me do not use bash scripts, they use nALFS, and use paco in their XML file as package management. It's WAY easier to make a XML file for nALFS (I have one template for my XML files, and do everything with it) than a SRPMS, and no need for a complicated database tool. And with LFS, you get everything as it was intended by the original authors. So basically, you rarely have a problem. Of course, when you're bleeding edge, you have to make some patches here and there.
The only time consuming task with LFS, is when you start. You have to learn and write your XML files for nALFS.
And then, it's very fast. For example, updating KDE for me is a matter of modifying the version numbers in my XML package file, then launch nALFS, and install what I called "KDE->base". Then it downloads, compile and install everything (and stops if there is an error). I get KDE entirely compiled the day after its released, generally speaking.
#