[lfs-dev] Once more: Package Management
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun May 20 12:10:38 PDT 2012
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> 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.
More information about the lfs-dev