[lfs-dev] Once more: Package Management

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at lightcubesolutions.com
Sun May 20 13:58:06 PDT 2012


On 5/20/12 3:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> 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.

I think perhaps the point is being missed here. The purpose of the 
proposal (creating and providing binaries) isn't for the _reader's_ use, 
(if someone found them and wanted to use them that's their decision), 
but it's solely for making development easier and providing 
documentation on how to use a packaging tool for creating an actual 
distribution.

So there is no threat here to what LFS or BLFS currently is. I 
absolutely agree that choice of optional dependencies should be left 
completely to user discretion.

A decision about how to build a binary (and provide a spec file) for use 
by other developers should be based completely, then, on what is useful 
for developing BLFS.

JH



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list