On 14 June 2014 19:13, Fernando de Oliveira <[email protected]> wrote:
> Em 14-06-2014 14:33, Richard Melville escreveu: > > On 14 June 2014 00:02, Baho Utot <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:46:21 PM Armin K. wrote: > > > On 06/13/2014 09:34 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: > > >>> Yes, I have sudo, but I use the > >>> Package Users > > > > > > > I don't really know what are you pointing at. Shadow will install > "su" > > > binary without PAM at all. You won't have any "su" executable in > > /tools > > > though since no package installs it anymore. You could try and > install > > > shadow in there if you really need it, but imho, package users is > > really > > > terrible packaging method. I think Fernando uses paco or something > > like > > > that, and that sounds more elegant to me. > > Yes, but it has problems: > > $ paco -sMFCndd xulrunner-30 firefox-30 thunderbird-24.6 > 368k [ ] 4 [ ] ( 2) 12-Jun-2014 16:54 firefox-30.0 > 0 [ ] 1 [ ] ( 1) 12-Jun-2014 18:22 thunderbird-24.6.0 > 388k [ ] 15 [ ] ( 6) 12-Jun-2014 20:38 xulrunner-30.0 > > The sizes and number of files (so the logged files themselves) are not > correct. > > I think I know the reason. > > > > > Paco is excellent for *LFS; it's a simple package logger with an > > uninstall option, however, it's now become Porg (porg.sourceforge.net > > <http://porg.sourceforge.net>). I haven't tried the new build as I'm > > still using the last available paco release, so I'm not sure what porg > > offers that paco didn't. > > When it works correctly, it is good. > > Yesterday, I updated bind in the book and paco worked fine. After, just > ran: > > paco -r bind > > It was removed bind from my dev machine. > > But the use for me is more to have a quick way to inspect what I have > installed. This helps with dependencies. I also use Bruce's method, but > paco gives maore info, e.g. the files/directories that were installed. > But it is not 100% reliable, and I use DESTDIR, find, tree, etc, for dev > work. > That's interesting. I've never found it to be unreliable but then, like you, I only use it as a simple logger, providing a list of installed packages and paths, with the occasional use of the uninstall function. > > When I have time, will try porg (didn't know, thanks). > De nada -- I'd be interested in the results. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
