Re: building pam and x11 in phase2

On Saturday 21 June 2003 11:08, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>
> (a) it makes it easier to use the
> intermediate as a testbed, for example
> to go build devchk against the lsbsi
> we can't use the phase3 (final), since
> it has no build tools; currently we
> also can't use phase2 because it doesn't
> have everything required by the LSB.
>

unless things have changed, phase2 was not lsb complient enough for testing 
when I last played with it.  Sorry, don't recall the specifics.

Having a tarball of the build tools you could plop on a phase3/final would not 
be a bad thing.  Stuart and I had talked about it.

> (b) there's a chance that the support
> for pam will be better in phase3 if
> it's present when various packages are
> configured - and configuration is done
> against what's found in phase2.
>

This makes sense although it would be worthwhile to find out if there is truth 
to the hypothesis.

> However, I don't know if either of these
> are "real" benefits and thus whether
> it's worth adding to the build.
>

PAM will add little to the build time and not much (10, 20 megs) to the size.  
So adding it seems harmless and possibly beneficial.

X11 on the other hand is really neither small or rapidly compiled.  This also 
could create a problem analagous to the gains for PAM.  Some program may 
decide "hey I should have X11 support" and compile rather differently.

(/me floats back out into the ether)