Alexander E. Patrakov patrakov at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 21:20:50 PDT 2008

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I would like to add RPM to BLFS because it is required for a system to be 
> compliant with the Linux Standards Base.

Which version? 4.x and 5.x are completely different beasts. Anyway, LFS contains 
a severe deviation from LSB (no libncurses.so.5 by default, only a non-standard 
wide-character version, but here the standard is wrong), thus, I don't think 
that it is a good idea to use this "standard" as a rationale.

Anyway, if you want (B)LFS to be LSB-compliant, you'll need to do a lot more things:

1) ld-lsb.so.3 -> ld-linux.so.2 symlink
2) a fake "lsb" RPM, because the standard requires that LSB packages must be 
installed without --nodeps
3) run their binary testsuite and fix all failures, even if this means 
downgrading versions and reintroducing other, more severe, bugs. See 
http://bugs.debian.org/401006 as an example that I would like to avoid.

As for your proposal to put RPM into BLFS, I think this has to be discussed in 
LFS, too. Reason: package management belongs in the next-generation LFS, and it 
is an option to have it there, as opposed to BLFS.

Alexander E. Patrakov

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list