Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
>> This is incompatible with the "strictly adhere to LFS" goal, because LFS has
>> no
>> package management except "rebuild everything once a day". Note that I make
>> no
>> statement about the relative merit of these two incompatible goals.
>>
>
> I suppose so. Although, the way I was perceiving it:
>
> * The configure and make arguments do not change so there is no
> difference in the binaries produced
> * The install arguments do not change so the binary locations are the same
> * All we really do is package up and log
>
> Isn't it still adhering strictly enough to LFS to count? Granted, this
> may not meet what is truly considered package management in a distro
> sense, but it would still ease development, and help in allowing further
> customization
I got around this problem with quite a simple solution, configuring and
making the program are all the same except for when you do make install,
this is instead done by a script called makeinstall which monitors all
the files that 'make install' creates and links, this script then
creates a log of those files in /var/log/packages. A second script
called removepkg is able to remove all the files that are listed within
the package log.
It's package management without using packages, it also removes the need
for 'make uninstall' which most of us have found out rarely exists.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
