On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 10:21:27PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > > Now the important, in my opinion, parts: > > DESTDIR-based techniques are not as popular as others! So we have to learn > them > first before writing about them. Probably, this happens because the current > LFS > book is not really suited to DESTDIR. See also the high correlation > coefficient > (0.43) between this and deviation from LFS. > > The "I rebuild often" and "I use the scripting feature of the PM" checkboxes > are > not correlated (-0.06). I find this strange and cannot explain. > Speaking, as always, only for myself - I use the scripting feature of my scripts! No, that doesn't sound like English, my point is that any need for pm came late to the party - first build LFS, then decide that I wanted to keep building it, and only later decide to use 'find' for minimal pm. Summary: in my opinion, I use the pm feature of my scripts - putting it the other way is cart-before-horse.
As a 'find' user, I fully accept that DESTDIR has its place - e.g. looking at a version upgrade - but it isn't part of my normal pm. > The deviation rates from both LFS and BLFS are not correlated to the editor > status. Thus, we can say that the community is not split. > > It is surprising that a lot of users (among both editors and non-editors) > will > accept a totally broken package manager that overwrites their customizations > of > the configuration files. This indicates that they probably didn't try to > implement package management themselves (or didn't even package stuff for > regular distributions) and thus didn't meet the problem. Existence of such > users > that can't tell a key property of a good PM will surelly negatively affect > the > quality of the resulting pages in LFS. I.e., again, we have to learn more > about > package management before attempting to write about it. > Here, I think you are reading too much into the results - you knew what you were looking to find out, but people interpreted your questions differently. In practice, I find it hard to believe _any_ LFS users would willingly accept a pm that overwrites their customizations or configurations - we're the anal guys who want to deal with the nuts and bolts, even if sometimes that means we reinvent the wheel. (Did I really say that?) Of course, if I was supporting users or public-facing servers I'd probably choose to go along with a preferred distro's pm and just accept that it would overwrite my preferences until I'd spent years learning to tame it. Actually, I'll qualify that slightly - as soon as you move outside LFS, at least on non-x86, you discover package maintainers don't always do what we now regard as the normal way of doing things. I have to be aware that anytime I want to change the result, it might blow up in my face - e.g in dhcp-3.0.5 try ./configure --disable-static : why would I expect some weird pm to be any different, it's just another hurdle to get past ? ĸen -- OK, you're so clever, you tell us what colour this wheel should be. [THHGTTG] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
