Hi again! First, thank all of you for the replies!
On Monday 18 September 2006 03:05, Ken Moffat wrote: > "I'm a developer" - _what_ are you developing ? the phrase means > many different things. If you are developing your own distro, you > don't normally want multiple versions of things, having 'stable' and > 'unstable' is usually bad enough. If you are developing a > particular package, yes, you might want to test it against multiple > systems (but then, testing against e.g. current fedora and debian > unstable is perhaps more useful for your users). I'm a PHP/MySQL programmer so I have to write scripts working with different versions/version combinations of Apache/PHP/MySQL. Besides, I write C/C++ programs and I want them to be able to be compiled/work with different libraries/compilers/libcs combinations. On Monday 18 September 2006 03:45, Dan Nicholson wrote: > Many programs hard code locations and expect to see > other tools/libs/data in standard locations. Even with symlinks, it's > a lot of work. Agree. I think the problem of hard coding other program's paths is one of the most important problems breaking the method. > I would not install multiple versions > of glibc. It's a special package that provides tools that are on the > same level as the kernel in my mind. The dynamic linker and the libc > are probably not things where you'd want to have multiple versions > trying to work at once. I would expect some odd things to happen. Well, now I see I got excited here. The old glibc version really seems unnecessary in the light of what you, Ken and Ag. Hatzimanikas said. > Aside from glibc, though, something you might want to check out is > unionfs. There have been a lot of ideas kicked around about using this > as part of a package management scheme. I don't know if there are any > fully developed versions yet. With unionfs, you can overlay all the > package directories right into /. So, then you could change which > version of the package was currently merged into / without having to > ditch all the standard prefix conventions. > > http://www.am-utils.org/project-unionfs.html From unionfs-1.3/INSTALL: "Unionfs does not provide cache coherency. What this means to you is that if you directly modify the lower-level branches, then Unionfs will get confused." I'm not sure about using unionfs, the quotes above is what confuses me. So I decided to install the packages multiple versions of which I really need, into /usr/pkg while others will be installed into just /usr. -- Nothing but perfection pv -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
