Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > * DESTDIR style PM support? (To me, this is the easiest way of offering > a default pseudo-style PM support. We don't actually tell the users how > to package up the binaries, track dependencies or track what is > installed, but we do show whatever DESTDIR-compatible commands exist for > the package so that LFS can be that much more compatible with a wide > range of PM offerings). >
This actually dovetails very nicely with the work I've been doing for the Linux-Live-flavoured LFS. In order to turn the built packages into SquashFS modules, I found that I was basically doing everything necessary to implement this exact basis of package management. So what I did in my work was implement a new <sect2 role="binpackage"> (which in my opinion should be able to be switched on and off via profiling), which does the fakeroot install. The command to actually turn that into a SquashFS module is wrapped in a profiling switch specific to Linux-Live. So in an ideal universe, it could look something like this: <sect2 role="installation">...</sect2> <sect2 role="binpackage"> <title>Binary Package for Foo</title> <para>Perform the fakeroot install:</para> <screen><userinput>make DESTDIR=$PKGTEMP install</userinput></screen> <para pkgtype="linuxlive">Build the Squashfs filesystem:</para> <screen pkgtype="linuxlive"><userinput>mksquashfs $PKGTEMP ../foo-&foo-version;.$SQEXT $SQOPTS</userinput></screen> <para pkgtype="tarball">Build the package tarball:</para> <screen pkgtype="tarball"><userinput>tar -C $PKGTEMP -cjf ../foo-&foo-version;-bin.tar.bz2 *</userinput></screen> </sect2> Does this look reasonable? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
