[lfs-dev] Once more: Package Management

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun May 20 12:10:38 PDT 2012


Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> FWIW...
> 
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Fortunately, that is not a deal breaker for me if the 
>> readers get the same treatment (which seems to be the case), but this 
>> does hard code optional dependencies for the pre-packaged installations. 
>> This is both good and bad. From a development standpoint, it won't take 
>> me a week to build a fairly standard system to test a simple package 
>> upgrade, but that still means manual (or maybe only partially automated) 
>> builds for omitting optional deps in the build process up to the point 
>> that I need.
> 
> This exact reason, for the record, is why I really dislike binary
> distros.  I *never* choose the same set of dependencies that are
> optional in the source, as the distro does.  And because when they ran
> ./configure, they added a --with-foo flag, the package compiled with
> -lfoo, meaning the binary version of the package now has a hardcoded
> requirement for libfoo.so.N or whatever it is.

I agree with this.  I am updating vim in BLFS to add current patches and 
do not like all the xorg dependencies in vim.  Others may want gvim.

There are a lot of decisions that must be made in BLFS about 
dependencies.  It's difficult to provide a package manager that does not 
take away the user's choices.

   -- Bruce



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list