> Chapter 6 of the LFS book deals with the use of package managers. I am > curious to know how any of the ones described would actually work in > the LFS ecosystem.
I don't use any of those. I began with Ingo Bruekl's git. > A package manager is a tool for automating updates. I beg to differ. What I use mine for is to watch and record what is installed in the build process, so I can pull out an individual package, replace it, try that, pull it out and restore the first. It doesn't DO anything itself that makes it the sort of package manager you're describing. It just lets ME do the package management. That's what I want, a tool, not an overlord. > It therefore seems to depend on the existence of a repository with the > following characteristics: One of the things *I can do* with pio, what I call my moded version when someone else usurped the name "git", is make a tarball from the list of files it saw installed. I combine the "removal" script (mostly a lot of rm's & rmdir's), the tarball of installed files, the script I make from the book (which includes using pio), and the original source tarball, into a tarball and call that an update if you will. Nothing happens to that unless I do it. Nothing of an overall configuration is ever recorded. I have to think about what I want to do, and do it, or "finesse" it and cheat. If I want to do something I don't need some package manager arguing with me about what's going to happen. > 1) Someone keeps it filled with the latest versions of all the > packages, so that the package manager can tell when an update is > needed. > 2) For a source-based distro, automated build scripts are also > available. > 3) There is automatic tracking of dependencies. > > It seems to me that none of these conditions are met by LFS, although > I suppose you could use ALFS to fulfil condition 2. Of course not. LFS is all about us building our own systems, not using a whole S/W infrastructure someone else defines and is necessary for his "update" to fit in and work. > I must admit, I haven't been updating much, just using each system as > a build host for the next one when a new book comes out, which is > probably very bad practice security-wise. What do other people do? "Your system, your rules." -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - Does exactly what it says on the tin -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
