Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:11:09 -0600, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > It's not enough just to tar up the DESTDIR. You need to >> > consider installing the package (which IMO should be done by a script >> > created in the DESTDIR after removing any updated/dynamicly generated >> > files). That way you can create a tarball that is PM neutral and ready >> > for any real packaging scripts that you want to throw at it. I guess my >> > question is "What was the goal when this was decided?" 'make >> > DESTDIR=foo install', inspect the DESTDIR, and then 'make install'? >> > While I guess that there is nothing specifically wrong with that >> > approach, the DESTDIR is pretty much useless IMO, might as well stick to >> > installation logging.
Well... I wouldn't go so far as "useless", but you're right, it leaves out some important stuff. What about using the format that checkinstall uses for this sort of information? (Not to actually create the package - just to define the "hooks" for package description, scripts, and such.) > I was under the impression that Gordon's patches would just be a starters for > 10. I kind of assumed that we'd have an 'install_package()' function as an > analogue to 'make_package()'. In its simplest form, this would simply > untar the package tarball created by make_package(), but there's obviously > plenty of scope for it to do much more. Quite how much of that potential we > want to make use of in LFS, and how much we should leave as an exercise for > the reader will probably take a bit more discussion. Indeed, I'm not even attempting to address that yet - for the immediate moment, just getting each package's files isolated into its own tarball is such a big first step that I'm willing to deal with any changes that need to be made to install those packages. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
