Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> This seems to be the knotty problem. Just how are we going to *use* PM in >> LFS? > > Both RPM and Debian package managers require writing a set of control files > in > order to create a package. Although it is possible to write dummy files > containing only packaging information for pre-built files (and no building > instructions), this is not how these tools are supposed to be used. I.e., I > strongly object to this severe lobotomization. In this case, a simpler > package > management scheme is needed. However, in simple tar-based schemes, there is a > trap in handling configuration files when upgrading a package. > > So: given that we still can't agree on the set of features to implement, I > propose LFS to never have any sort of PM, and those who disagree with this > "no > PM" policy should start a fork right now.
That is an extreme reaction. My question was meant to discuss. Because I don't have a good answer, I wanted to further that to try to understand the issues better and possible solutions. Instead, I get a final conclusion that it can't be done. Your conclusion that "we still can't agree on the set of features to implement" is *far* too premature. I'm not sure whether I personally want to use PM or not, but I know others do and PM is certainly something that distros do. For that reason, I think it belongs in the book. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
