Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno AT gmail.com>]

Andrew Stitt escribió:
> As was pointed out by Seth, you do need to explain yourself. I think its a
> better form of collaboration. Hypothetically if someone really is correct
> then they should be able to support that with more tangible information.
> Its certainly makes us no worse off.
> 
> Also, we have a certain design philosophy in this distro of minimalism and
> simplicity. We're not in the business of tailoring things precisely to
> one idea of correctness. Every user knows whats best for *their*
> installation. Its my understanding of this philosophy that we (as a
> distro) aren't going to force anything on them. Put another way, we
> aren't in the business of preventing people from doing certain things
> by forcing certain behaviors on them.
> 
> This discussion comes up every few months with a different idea of what
> the "right" basesystem build order is. Yours may very well be correct
> for your particular application. I suspect you've been involved with LFS
> and look at it from that perspective. However that order may not be
> correct or desirable for others in all cases. Everything in basesystem
> arguably depends on nearly everything else in basesystem. The answer
> is always the same though. Just cast the first 7 things the way you
> want, then do your rebuild. (Likewise, I do my own custom steps before
> a rebuild). There are more elaborate things you could do, such as making
> a custom spell for your bootstrap components. There might be a sorcery
> enhancement in here somewhere, if there is, it hasn't been expressed
> generally enough.

I explained it better in other e-mail.

Of course I can do it manually, and I did, but it will be nice to have
sorcery to do it for me :).

I know, maybe it's not suitable for 'sorcery rebuild', but could be
added as another command.

The only thing that I think should be done in that way is the
toolchain, because it's desirable to have the system rebuilt with
the newer version of gcc.

I'm still not sure about if glibc should be built, as I see, it
should be sufficient with binutils and gcc, but a friend said that
some of the gcc characteristics depends on it, so I trust him until
I get time to check that by myself.