Base applications

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Thu Apr 12 14:37:57 PDT 2001

On April 12, 2001 07:05 am, Mario Carugno wrote:
> Hello.
> This is my first message to this list, and my english could be not perfect
> so, patience please.
> My first question is if the list of packages listed in the lfs manual is
> really the shortest quantity of packages needed by a minimal linux.
> I'm not an linux expert, i'm learning. But i see packages like diffutils,
> shellutils, textutils, and they seem (to me) not to be part of a minimal
> linux version.
> I'm correct ?

Like others have said: you are.

LFS doesn't build a minimalistic Linux system (if that's stil in the docs 
somewhere, I have overlooked it and should be changed). LFS gives you a full 
development version, but minimal full development. It sounds a bit ackward. A 
default LFS system will have all the common development tools but not every 
single one that's out there. It's a trade off between usability, development 
and common sense in what a base system should contain. There are always 
disagreements; people think packages should be added, others think some 
should be removed. They are all right, but LFS isn't going to change for a 
while. What we have now is something we all have agreed on, the middle 
ground. It has a bit of everything.

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-

Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-apps-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the blfs-support mailing list