Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

I can think of two cases where you suggested I use BL1 instead:

1.  To install dosemu because it requires bash (but I could add bash to 
BL3 - I might try the dietlibc version of it)
2.  To use seejpeg/vgalib as a viewer for links, if you have too little 
RAM to run X with xli.  This can also be added to BL3.

BL1 might work better for compiling since it has the full versions of the 
busybox utilities.  I compiled kermit with it.  I have not tried compiling 
with BL3 yet.

Christof likes something else about BL1 - the keyboard package?

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> sindi keesan wrote:
> > I bet people would appreciate it if you put
> > this comparison (and maybe also added BL2)
> > at the three BL websites so they could choose
> > appropriately.
>
> IMHO BL3 is much better than BL1 (that's why
> it's got the higher number).  So BL3 is usually
> the right one to choose (unless someone is
> intending to install a lot of Slackware packages,
> in which case, BL2 provides the best Slackware
> foundation).


You can install Slackware packages to BL3, from SW3 or 4, or if you add 
a later library, from later Slackwares.  Is there any particular advantage 
to using BL2 rather than BL3 with glibc added from SW81, plus any full 
versions of busybox utilities that prove necessary?

> Cheers,
> Steven
>
> ____________________________
> http://www.basiclinux.com.ru
> _______________________________________________
> BasLinux mailing list
> BasLinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux

keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org