[lfs-dev] Once more: Package Management

Armin K. krejzi at email.com
Mon May 21 16:58:38 PDT 2012


On 05/22/2012 01:27 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> It omits the core point of LFS...education. I dislike providing binary
> packages to users, but a working example of how to create those binary
> packages is something we've lacked for a long time, plus getting those
> packages that don't honor DESTDIR explained with a working example
> chroot...I just can't (or possibly don't want to) see a downside as far
> as education or documentation is concerned. Yes, it'll undoubtedly be a
> bit hairy at first. As far as choosing what PM to use, I guess it is no
> different than making the decision to use vim over emacs (an equally
> nasty holy war). As long as concepts learned are applicable to other
> PMs, then it is all good. I suspect a good deal could be taken from
> other consumers of pacman (that is what Arch uses, right?).
>
> -- DJ
>

I don't get what's the whole thing about, but I think that packaging can 
be documented very well. I have installed about 1000 packages using 
DESTDIR or equivalent method, writing base INSTALL files which contain 
just cp -r commands and some triggers, like adding an user, chowning, 
chmoding, running gtk-update-icon-cache, man-db update, installing info 
files and such. It's not hard work and it can be done if we just put 
some effort. Also, if this is to happen, I suggest we don't make any 
changes to the current BLFS since Bruce has planed release for 
September, and it isn't enough time for the goal. I am in process of 
fully documenting build process from cd sourcedir to after make install 
DESTDIR, including install triggers, post make install stuff like 
stripping, creating aditional files, symlinks and such.

Also, I see you mention package managers ... For me, Debian's dpkg is 
the hardest one. debian/rules file uses Makefile syntax which I am not 
familiar with. Red Hat's rpm uses some kind of spec file which doesn't 
seem that hard to understand, but still it's medium-hard for newbies and 
for me, too. Gentoo's portage is difficult like hell, I never even 
bothered to look at one of it's files. Archlinux's pacman seems most 
easiest. It uses bash syntax, it's just like LFS "input" commands are 
pasted into that file. So, if you people decide to "make book generate 
spec files", go for pacman, it will be the most easiest to implement.

Sure there are more, but theese are most common ones mentioned.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list