[lfs-dev] Once more: Package Management

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Sun May 20 15:17:50 PDT 2012


On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 04:34:11PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
 Maybe license incompatabilites - one of the great things about
building from source is that we can just build without having to
worry about the details of some of the licenses when thay apply to
binaries.  We can also hack, or patch, the source - compare
iceweasel and icedove to their upstreams.  We used to warn about the
limitations of --enable-official-branding in firefox, but we seem to
have lost that.

 I don't have an example, because I've never had to worry about this
since I stopped providing a RescueCD, but I'm fairly sure there are
packages which will require certain documentation to be installed.
Maybe BLFS already installs it, maybe it doesn't, but it's another
thing that would need to be checked if we were providing binary
packages.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list