Eric Herman wrote: > To make life better for myself, I added an "ldconfig" user to Matthias > Beckmann's original plan, and my friend (who goes by Random) did a nice > job of pulling both of our mods into a gentle fork, which is mirrored here: > > https://github.com/ericherman/package-users
Thanks for the link. Does this scale well when you have lots of packages? I'm rereading http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/more_control_and_pkg_man.txt and it sounds like you have to make sure the makefile doesn't perform certain functions during install (like install to a non-install directory or mess with permissions). What are your experiences with going through and changing the makefiles (configure, cmake scripts, etc.) to handle this? Do you have to redo the patches/fixes you make for these situations each time you upgrade to a newer version of the software? As I'm building various programs (on different operating systems), I'm hitting lots of situations where the makefiles fail and I'm ending up with lots of patches just to get programs to build properly. Been trying to use the DESTDIR variable to install to directories I want. However, some applications don't honor it. Some applications have the compiler name hard-coded. Might be fine if you're always using gcc, but what if you want to use lsbcc instead? Also having issues with programs installing files all over the place. Some put files under their own directories like openssl (I ended up with a \usr\local\ssl directory) and some put files in etc. or /usr/local/etc. Files also end up all over the place under share (some in pixmaps, some under the application name, some under doc and some under html). Would like to organize for consistent file locations for applications, but not sure what to put where. I've reread the FHS information several times and still have lots of questions on where things should go or shouldn't that aren't answered by the document. How do you handle organizing some of this? For instance, am curious what directories your openssl files ended up in. > I have come to really appreciate this approach, but I know that other > approaches (like actually building .deb/.rpm or variations on the > "forest of symlinks" approach) are more in-keeping with traditional > distros, and that makes an LFS system a little less alien, but from your > comments I suspect you're willing to be a bit alien. I'm definitely not thrilled with the .deb or .rpm approach. I want to automate the build and installation process as much as possible and from everything I've read, it sounds like the process to initially create the .deb or .rpm is anything but automated. You're basically automating it for the end user. I'd definitely like to look into other systems even if they're not standard and find the best approach for my own needs. Thanks very much for the information you supplied. Sincerely, Laura -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
