2008/2/27, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The way package management is handled is also something we should learn > > from. PM is allowed for, even encourages, but is not required. I feel > > this is an important point. PM should not be mandated, users should be > > able to choose a package management system, or none at all. > > > Well, I think it should be mandated, and the choice of which to use > made and integrated. I say this so that BLFS can depend on it being > there. The choice should be - you can choose to leave it out, but then > when you use BLFS, you'll know how to alter it won't you.
After some experience with forking LFS to add support for RPM, I must say that I strongly disagree with giving a chioce here. First, without a concrete and full example of package management, it is very easy to produce just "general handwaving", which is not really useful. DESTDIR alone (as done in DIY) is not enough--there must be also explicit lists of files that should be preserved on upgrades, lists of files that can change their MD5 sum during the normal operation of the package, the list of post-installation steps (such as "install-info" invocation) that the Makefile omits in the DESTDIR approach. Second, it is far easier to adjust a full working RPM example to a deb or Arch build than to produce a package from the build instructions not really targetted at the package management. Third, even Gentoo, a very customizable distribution, forces a concrete package manager. I don't care which package management system gets added, but it must be concrete. > > Adding package management would not turn LFS into a distro, if the > > builder is given a choice. Instead, I think with a scheme like this, > > LFS could evolve from a book on how to build your own linux system into > > a book on how to build your own linux distro. And this is really 'Your > > Distro, Your Rules." > > > True nuff, but we also say: If you stick to the book you'll build a > working system. That's the LFS guarantee. But if you can't be the > guy that makes the rules, then the fun comes from breaking the rules. Agreed. But breaking the rules the same way over and over again (e.g., because of some justified technical disagreement with the book, like it was the case when udev was first added) is not fun at all. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
