Stephen Bryant wrote these words on 01/29/13 16:53 CST:
> Don't worry, this will be my last message on this particular topic
> here, unless it gets a reply.
Well I've enjoyed reading about your adventures in what looks like a major
PIA to me. I could never have a system that was just a bunch of symlinks!
> Anyway, in relation to the topic, my current understanding is that the
> following needs to be done to install a package in symlink package
> managment style from its '/usr/pkg/<pkg-name>/<pkg-num>' DESTDIR into
> the root tree:
>
> 1 - Make directories in the root tree that are in the DESTDIR but not
> in the root tree.
> 2 - Symbolic link from the root tree to any non-symlink files in the DESTDIR.
> 3 - Copy any symlink files in the DESTDIR into the root tree.
I'm not sure why you would copy the symlinks and not just symlink to them
just like you do all other files.
> Once more, just on the off-chance someone might answer, is this a
> valid approach, and even if so is it overkill
Seems like overkill to me for a package management system, but "Your system,
Your rules". I have my own home-cooked package management system that I
development. Works for me.
> (i.e. are there ever
> parts of a package in the DESTDIR tree that can be known in advance to
> not need to be copied/symlinked (other than documentation), or is it
> always *all* of them (more explicitly, for example, are 'pkg-name.so',
> 'pkg-name.so.1' and 'pkg-name.so.1.0.1' all needed, and if they are
> only needed in some cases is it safe to leave, for example,
> 'pkg-name.so.1.0.1' in the DESTDIR tree and only have the other
> symlinks ('.so' and '.so.1' linking to their counterparts in the
> DESTDIR tree)))?
I would copy/symlink everything if I were doing it, but then I haven't
thought too much about it other than following your adventure.
> If anyone has got this far, thanks for bearing with me, and I promise
> not to post on this topic again unless it is replied to and I feel the
> reply requires a response...
Discuss. Don't worry about it. Though I suppose this really isn't a direct
LFS Support subject and might be better in -chat, but nobody looks/posts
on -chat anymore so it probably is no big deal.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
17:06:00 up 55 days, 3:05, 1 user, load average: 0.20, 0.13, 0.09
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
