Alexander Lang wrote: > 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?
This seems more like hint material to me. Perhaps if there is a hint and it is widely used, it could be considered for mainline use. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
