Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > What do other LFSers think? I have another idea (maybe it exists already, maybe not): I recently discovered uninonfs (http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/project-unionfs.html) and it seems to me, that it could be used for our purpose, allowing the instructions to remain as they are now: Instead of using DESTDIR, we could use a union-mount of the LFS partition (ro) and a empty one (rw). When installing a package, the LFS partition remains unchanged, as it is mounted ro, and on the rw partition we get what we would get using DESTDIR. This way, we could tell the readers at the beginning what they would have to do if they want more control/package management, and if they decide, that they do not, the instructions work the same anyway. (transferring the package to the actual LFS system would be a task like unpacking, it is enough, if it is explained once, i think)
I did not try this jet, so it may not even work as i expect, but i hope it is useful to somebody. A problem would be, that there are many hosts, that do not support unionfs. What do you think? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
