Jesse Tie Ten Quee highos at
Tue Sep 5 13:03:08 PDT 2000


On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:38:37PM -0700, Mark Stone wrote:
> Personally, I'd just go with the BSD license. It's less complicated, more
> flexible, and I don't think you're really worried about someone stealing
> your code and forking off a proprietary project.


> The more interesting question is what to do about source code versus
> binary. I've always thought that what makes LFS different from a
> distribution is that everything must start from source code. A
> distribution can and often does include binary only, even where the source
> code is available. Working strictly from source code keeps LFS at its
> purest. Furthermore, if LFS sticks to official standards like LSB, a
> precompiled binary should just work, right? All the libraries are where
> the should be, all the directories are where they should be. If something
> breaks with a binary like that, then it has to be because of a problem
> with the binary program itself. I note that Netscape and all the games
> from Loki -- good examples of popular binary-only code -- come with their
> own installers. If LFS builds a clean base system, then those installers
> should just work. No need for special profiling on the part of ALFS.

I was going to say we should support binary packages also, but you raised and interesting point.

Jesse Tie Ten Quee - highos at highos dot com

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list