> Well for me personally, I never update an existing version of lfs/blfs. > I do a full clean rebuild of each and every package. Each time a new > version of lfs/blfs is pending, I do a baremetal re-installation. > ... > Of course I am not employed, so this is my form of entertainment.
[chuckles] > > If we had our own package manager ... Have you seen "pio" the Package Installation Observer in the Hints? I dare say I should rewrite it. > Well, package managers (as in "build all the possible dependencies, > even if they are useless to you") were one of the things which led > me to try building from source. This is one reason I like pio. RPM, et al., it is NOT! It says, in effect: Let me watch what happens when you're ready to do a "make install", et seq., and I'll record what gets installed and I'll make a script for you that will remove all that stuff. (Of course, while that's going on, don't go making something ELSE happen!) The thing is pio isn't demanding. If, after you install a package, you tell pio this package depends on some other package, all pio will do is warn you when you try to remove that package that this one depends in it being there. Stop you, it will NOT. Of course, having such "removal scripts" handy things are then possible, like searching through them to see which package a particular file belongs to. IF you want to do as I have done, and add something to your build scripts that will check to see if all the packages in a list are already installed, that's above pio's pay-grade as they say. I don't want a package manager that thinks it knows better what I want to do. I want an _assistant_, not a boss. pio works for me by not being "uppity" and trying to do too much it can't know is right or wrong. > And we do that as a part of the release process for every *stable* > version of BLFS, fixing issues as we go. Of course that doen't catch > every possible error. If you build packages in a different order or > omit/include optional dependencies, results will probably differ. Or if one tries to drop newer versions of a package into an older system. Which is why I don't "update" in that way. The only updating I will do is add and build a _new_ package in a system, or rarely a bug-fix, i.e. openssl-1.0.2o for 1.0.2l. If it were to be changing to a new Firefox with a new set of dependencies, that would require a fork, and I've never found that worth doing. I'd fork to a whole new version of B/LFS. > Generally I try to build everything with all internal dependencies and And I very much depend on, and am very grateful for, you doing that. What I do is because I do NOT want to "leave the reservation" and take on that job! -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
