ALFS/LSB...LSB, your thoughs
mstone at valinux.com
Fri Jul 7 22:46:10 PDT 2000
I don't think that a package management system has to be implemented right
away. The main thing is to anticipate future needs. So what _is_ needed
now is some sort of record (or database, using the term "database"
loosely) of what's been installed, and what the dependencies are. That
would make it possible to implement a package management scheme later on.
The ideal would be to make choice of package managers up to the user --
rpm, deb, bsd, roll your own -- and simply build the data that would
enable that choice. In other words, build in "forward compatibility".
That sounds like the direction things are going in, which is fine.
In defense of rpm: you can't imagine how many customers insist on Red Hat,
or rpm, just because those are the buzzwords they've heard. You can
carefully explain to them the virtues of, say, Debian, and the associated
virtues of recursive dependency checking, and they'll just nod, smile, and
say, "Red Hat, please." Well the customer is always right. So if you don't
plan for rpm compatibility, you're needlessly limiting your audience. You
don't have to insist on rpm, but I think you do have to make room for it.
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Jesse Tie Ten Quee wrote:
> Ok before i start talking about Package Management, i think we should still
> consider at first that ALFS should *just* do LFS right now.
> The Profile system is very versitile, in that it would be easy to add a
> package management later on.
> I don't see why ALFS should use an RPM/DEB packaging system quite yet.
> I find that whenever i do an LFS install now, i just keep track of which
> files were installed with easy package.
> It would be fairly trivial to create an RPM or DEB database once the install
> is done, and the profile's have dependencies listed.
> The way Bryan and myself were thinking about the profile system is not only
> using them for installation of the system, but if need be, per package.
> Those profile's could be converted to an RPM/DEB/tgz/whatever.
> Which is basiclly a package management system.
> Allthought i keep hearing everyone shouting about RPM, some are using LSB as
> an excuse, i just don't see why ALFS should limit itself to using one
> packaging system when you could (as an option) create a database later on
> and create binary packages for backup, etc...
> >I don't have FreeBSD but I do have OpenBSD (version 4.2 I think)
> >somewhere which I've never installed. Perhaps I should install it and
> >see what's going on there. Or is OpenBSD totally different than FreeBSD
> >(I'm not familiar with any BSD flavour for that matter)
> OpenBSD is at 2.7 right now, got to pick up a copy actually...
> I have no idea how FreeBSD works, mind explaning it though?
> i would take a look but i'm a bit busy right now :(
> Dunno...this was more of me rambling ;)
> But lets get talking about this, i know Bryan is working on a Perl Compiler
> right now with an LFS profile, and i was just about to start on
> communication between easy tool.
> So lets hear something before we regret it.
> Jesse Tie Ten Quee - tie at linux.ca - highos at highos.com
> Mail archive: http://www.pcrdallas.com/mail-archives/alfs-discuss
> IRC access: server: irc.linuxfromscratch.org port: 6667 channel: #LFS
> Unsubscribe: email alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org and put
> "unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
> (no subject is required)
Mail archive: http://www.pcrdallas.com/mail-archives/alfs-discuss
IRC access: server: irc.linuxfromscratch.org port: 6667 channel: #LFS
Unsubscribe: email alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)
More information about the alfs-discuss