On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Hello, > > > > So I finally got a free evening and the energy to sit down and get > > conceptual. This is the result: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/ > > > > Before replying about all that you see is wrong with it ;) keep the > > following in mind: > > > > This is a rough draft! A proof-of-concept only, designed to show > > possibilities and open up discussion/ideas. Think stick-figure. > > Glibc is not the best example for discussion. I requested such sample page > for > bash, not for glibc, for a reason: bash needs a specific patch in the RPM > case, > and I don't see the way to force such PM-specific instructions in the current > framework. > > Although even for glibc, there is something to discuss:
There are definitely always going to be improvements made on the package management side relative to the simple LFS commands. Let's not let that derail the overall picture here. However... > * making one big RPM package with both the shared library and its headers is > technically incorrect (this is not so severe for glibc, but think about > gradual > updates from libssl.so.0.9.8 to libssl.so.0.9.9, and that's impossible > without > removing a lot of dependent packages if one doesn't package the conflicting > headers in a separate RPM file); > > * the current framework doesn't allow for such split; I agree that there are major advantages to splitting the libraries out of the package, but why can't you just update the whole openssl package to get the library update? In fact, the -devel split you're talking about where the bare .so links and the headers are in a separate package wouldn't affect a library update in any way. In most cases, the .so.* links are part of the main package anyway (including openssl). > * editors that don't use a package manager have to be taught about this. I think it would always be the case that some people aren't going to care about the package management side. The editors that _do_ use a package manager have to be responsible for keeping the pages maintained. If an option to use dpkg was added, I probably wouldn't spend any time looking at it, but I would expect that their would be interested people who would tweak instructions in the way that most benefits dpkg. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
