larry at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Oct 12 08:34:31 PDT 2002
Tushar T wrote:
> That is true for the entire LFS+BLFS, not just BLFS. That's parts of the
> learning process!
I don't disagree with this, I guess what I'm asking for is a bending of what
we know of as the best place to install gnome so that a redo isn't the
entire system. The effects of screwing up the whole system on this install
seems warrant a little caution.
I also feel that some are experimenting with both gnome and kde to decide
which way they are going. The BLFS installs allow for this in a manner in
which, once the choice is made, a reinstall with a prefix of their choice
would be in order. This can all be explained in the write-up that Mark
spoke of, wrapping FHS compliance and BLFS policy on one page, our methods
also provide an example of how to test install other packages, before they
are integrated into your system.
> BLFS should never include pkg management. Two reasons:
> * There are various schemes for managing packages and any one will
> not satisfy everyone.
> * Pkg management should be started when building LFS, so discussing
> package management in BLFS would be too late.
> The best place for package management is in the hints or maybe as a
> seperate document with the various schemes being written by different
I think most people are in agreement with this. One option for BLFS is an
> So the user has decide how the packages will be managed. The job of BLFS
> is to install it in a standard way. Something which can easily go in
> /usr without hassles belongs in /usr. So Mozilla and lot of GNOME2
> packages would fall under that criteria. I dunno about GNOME1 since I
> don't have any gnome1 libraries on my system (except for the basic ones
> that mozilla requires).
> I dunno how accurate this info is but when I was reading abt Gentoo,
> their docs said something abt pkgs in /usr should not depend on packages
> in /opt i.e. packages in /opt should be self sustaining. Lot of
> non-gnome/post-gnome packages use Gnome Libraries.
So far any package using gnome is being put there. i.e. abiword, which by
no means has to be in /opt/gnome. I would be lying if I did not state that
Mozilla and QT are stretching this rule as ripping out either breaks galeon
> PS: I don't need to mention that everything written above should have
> IMO at the front:)
Always understood by me.
I did go back in the archives, unfortuately, most of the discussions were on
#lfs or private emails. I'm heavily guessing here, but Mark started out
against the idea of /opt/<packages>, but later wrote this on October 14,
There has been some discussion recently about using /usr for everything
except stuff with a buggerred up install procedure which will go in
/opt. I think I've been converted to that view recently. If nobody
objects, I'm going to convert all existing instructions to do this.
I'll give you all a few days to respond with objections to this but if I
hear nothing, I'll assume nobody minds ;-)
So, QT qualified as at that time, there was no make install. Mozilla started
out the same way. I would have to agree that everything BLFS has put in
/opt has had a "buggerred up" install procedure. For those that want to
disagree with me on Gnome, my basis is "order and consistency", break
either of those rules and you have buggered up gnome.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-dev