[lfs-dev] Once more: Package Management

Baho Utot baho-utot at columbus.rr.com
Sat May 19 10:21:29 PDT 2012


On 05/19/2012 09:26 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I've been holding back bringing this up on-list for a while because I
> intended to do the bulk of the work and then present a working system to
> the community for comment and review. I still intend to do that, but
> given some recent discussions, I think the time is right to bring this
> up and see where it goes.
>
> (Sorry for the cross posting, but since it involves both projects, I
> wanted to make sure all saw it - if possible, please reply on lfs-dev.)
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1. Adjust LFS/BLFS to auto-generate build recipes for individual
> packages that a packaging tool can use to create binary packages with
> meta information included such as dependency tracking.
>
> 2. Store 'official' copies of those binary packages in a developer
> package repository so that when developing (primarily BLFS) a dev can
> automatically pull and install into a build environment the dependencies
> he needs to build and create an individual package.
>
> 3. Create a standard workflow and tools whereby a developer can
> accomplish #2 and edit the book accordingly in an efficient, reliable way.
>
> Rationale:
>
> (B)LFS-style development by hand becomes a huge undertaking. BLFS _is_ a
> huge undertaking - and it's a difficult beast to maintain. In order to
> create a stable reference page in BLFS an editor has to have spent the
> time to build all of LFS, tweak it, go through current BLFS, manually
> install dependency packages and then carefully document the package he
> builds. No two developers are guaranteed to have the same environment,
> either, so accuracy and stability becomes an issue.
>
> The same is true of the LiveCD project, and is the main reason why it
> sits dead today. It is difficult to maintain when there are no packaged
> binaries to draw from and the entire thing is a scripted source build.
>
> Let me just say now that because (B)LFS is primarily (and probably
> should always be) about educating, I don't think we should require
> end-users to use package management. Mainly the proposal is intended to
> assist in development. However, if we have taken the time to incorporate
> PM in our dev workflow, we can make the option of building via PM tools
> available to readers if they wish to use it for themselves and build
> their own package repository.
>
> Details:
>
> (The following details assume pacman is the package manager chosen, but
> it could conceivably be another, such as rpm5.)
>
> 1. The end of LFS chapter 5 is modified to (optionally) build the
> packaging tool and any dependencies it has.
>
> 2. LFS chapter 6 is modified so that for each package a build recipe
> (e.g. PKGBUILD file) is generated from the book's source. A reader is
> given the option of carrying out the build manually or via the packaging
> tool.
>
> 3. LFS devs create official copies of the binary packages and install
> them to a semi-public package repository
>
> 4. BLFS is modified to also generate build recipes (PKGBUILD files) from
> its source
>
> 5. As BLFS devs work on individual packages, they can use the defined
> workflow and tools to generate a chroot environment with only the
> packages they need for build-time dependencies - they can then both
> produce a binary version of the package as well as document what they've
> done, the end product being a BLFS page which will generate/correspond
> to the PKGBUILD file.
>
> 6. BLFS dev updates the BLFS binary package repository with the
> 'official' package and other devs can now draw from and use those when
> working on their respective package.
>
> There are, I'm sure, both positives and negatives to this proposal, and
> I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.
>
> I intended to do all the development in the jh branch, but if there are
> more parties interested in helping this development, then I'm also open
> to sharing the workload and perhaps creating an environment where this
> can be done together.
>
> JH

I have in the past worked on LFS-6.8 and have a completed pacman build 
for it.  I wanted to build a desktop system from LFS/BLFS but it was too 
much work for me.   I have not gone further because BLFS is a beast as 
you say.  I completed a server using LFS/BLFS that handles mail web and 
news services.

Sharing the work using pacman would be great,  maybe we can exchange notes?





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list