Am Montag, den 05.11.2018, 09:52 -0600 schrieb Bruce Dubbs via blfs- dev: > On 11/05/2018 01:03 AM, Thomas Trepl via blfs-dev wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 14:47 -0400 schrieb Jean-Marc Pigeon > > via blfs-dev: > > > Hello, > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Well... as there is countries flags in "svg" format you > > > need librsvg, right.... > > > > > > librsvg need cargo (according designer, to be able to > > > easily set the compilation debug flag (?)), and cargo > > > is embedded with rustc... > > > > > > Wohhh... I have seen Email with a subject as "I hate rustc"..... > > > > > > Lets figure this out. > > > #metoo, "I hate rustc". > > > - 2 Build, hours apart won't give the same result, event > > > if it is the same version number. > > > - As package is huge (2Gig), compilation time is out > > > of control. > > > - No way to compile without being on the net. > > > - Its a "package deal" coming with own basic libraries set > > > (doubling the bugs surface) > > > - RPM file is near 600 Megs.... > > > (600 Megs for a compiler???, some time ago, I designed a > > > YACC parser in UCSD-pascal, within the Apple-II 64kbyte memory, > > > and it was able to compile its own YACC definition and rebuild > > > itself..., come on, 600 Megs for compiler...). > > > - Rustc project seems to be a biological chimera between > > > C (language) and modula2 (units implementation and > > > standardization) > > > - I wonder if rustc is an experimentation or a "coding bad trip". > > > > > > I (strongly) think rustc should be outcasted From Linux From Scratch. > > > > > > ... > > > > > I have never updated librsvg beyond 2.40.20, so no rustc on my > > systems. X11/Xfce works well so far. Ok, i also do not install firefox > > (systems are mainly servers) and i'm looking for alternatives. > > Just curious, but why do you install X11 on your servers? At most, you > would only need a text based browser, but I find I don't need that either.
Totally true and agreed - no server needs X but lynx is quite useful there (for me). I install X for BLFS reasons - to make sure that it works. Servers acting as "real" servers here (like packetfilter, firewall, gateway or the web-, mail-, ldap-servers) have no X. On VMs where i do BLFS, i try to come to a working installation with a nice login manager and XFCE as DE. *) Future plans here are to replace Arch as VirtualBox-host by LFS. But that requires multilib support where DJ and me are working on (a patch on the LFS book, just like the systemd variation but on top of both, sysv as well as systemd). That system will than require X/QT for the maintenance gui and all that stuff. Will be quite challenging but thats fun and that is what its all about, right? :-) -- Thomas *) A DE in the design of ElementaryOS based on their Pantheon WM would be finest, no myriades of config options, just working and looking nice ... ok, let me continue dreaming about ... -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
