Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> I would like to add RPM to BLFS because it is required for a system to be >> compliant with the Linux Standards Base. > > Which version? 4.x and 5.x are completely different beasts.
According to www.rpm.org, the current version is 4.4.2.3. > Anyway, LFS contains a severe deviation from LSB (no libncurses.so.5 by > default, only a non-standard wide-character version, but here the standard is > wrong), thus, I don't think that it is a good idea to use this "standard" as > a rationale. That is someting I need to investigate. > Anyway, if you want (B)LFS to be LSB-compliant, you'll need to do a lot more > things: > > 1) ld-lsb.so.3 -> ld-linux.so.2 symlink I know that. > 2) a fake "lsb" RPM, because the standard requires that LSB packages must be > installed without --nodeps I'll have to look at that. > 3) run their binary testsuite and fix all failures, even if this means > downgrading versions and reintroducing other, more severe, bugs. That is something for the user to decide. I just want to provide instructions on how to do it. I do have contacts with the LSB maintainers and may be able to get changes made if they enhance Linux distros in general (not just LFS). See > http://bugs.debian.org/401006 as an example that I would like to avoid. > > As for your proposal to put RPM into BLFS, I think this has to be discussed > in LFS, too. Reason: package management belongs in the next-generation LFS, > and it is an option to have it there, as opposed to BLFS. No, no, no. I am not proposing to *use* RPM for BLFS or LFS. As you say, that needs to be discussed with the LFS and BLFS communities. I just want to add the package. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
