[lfs-dev] Once more: Package Management

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun May 20 14:34:11 PDT 2012


Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 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.

OK, then what's wrong with a tarball of binaries that we have created 
for this purpose?  There could be a tarball of the base LFS system and 
then additional tarballs for certain packages or groups (e.g. xorg) of 
packages.

   -- Bruce



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list