RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu May 22 07:21:13 PDT 2008
> As far as I understand, the outcome was (roughly) that LFS needs to provide at
> least a no-PM and PM versions, with a well-known PM. And a requirement has been
> formulated that the commands must match between these two versions (thus ruling
> out %configure for RPM). Now Bruce wonders if we create a source RPM for each
I think we simply have to make sure both versions use the same commands.
The end result should be you (collective you, not you personally) ending
up with a system that is identical no matter which build method was
chosen that time.
> package. The answer (obvious from a sample implementation that has been posted
> already to this list, and from Dan's work) is that we don't create a source RPM,
> but a spec file indeed has to be created for each package. There is no way to
> use RPM without spec files.
Perhaps I wasn't clear about that earlier. I don't want us to ship
binary packages. I would like to use a PM that builds the binaries from
source code just as you were doing it manually and then tar'ing up the
resulting installed files for re-deployment (on the same or other
> The second question (how to use a PM in LFS) is left unanswered, because of its
> inexact formulation. I don't see any other way for RPM except writing a spec
> file, running "rpm -bb" on it, and installing the resulting binary package with
> "rpm -i" onto one or more systems, and the same principle applies to every other
> DESTDIR-based package manager.
That's exactly how I envisioned it.
More information about the lfs-dev