> As far as I understand, the outcome was (roughly) that LFS needs to provide > at > least a no-PM and PM versions, with a well-known PM. And a requirement has > been > formulated that the commands must match between these two versions (thus > ruling > out %configure for RPM). Now Bruce wonders if we create a source RPM for each
I think we simply have to make sure both versions use the same commands. The end result should be you (collective you, not you personally) ending up with a system that is identical no matter which build method was chosen that time. > package. The answer (obvious from a sample implementation that has been > posted > already to this list, and from Dan's work) is that we don't create a source > RPM, > but a spec file indeed has to be created for each package. There is no way to > use RPM without spec files. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that earlier. I don't want us to ship binary packages. I would like to use a PM that builds the binaries from source code just as you were doing it manually and then tar'ing up the resulting installed files for re-deployment (on the same or other similar systems). > The second question (how to use a PM in LFS) is left unanswered, because of > its > inexact formulation. I don't see any other way for RPM except writing a spec > file, running "rpm -bb" on it, and installing the resulting binary package > with > "rpm -i" onto one or more systems, and the same principle applies to every > other > DESTDIR-based package manager. That's exactly how I envisioned it. Gerard -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
