Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 21:31:13 PDT 2008

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 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.

According to www.rpm.org, the current version is

> 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.

That is someting I need to investigate.

> 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

I know that.

> 2) a fake "lsb" RPM, because the standard requires that LSB packages must be
>  installed without --nodeps

I'll have to look at that.

> 3) run their binary testsuite and fix all failures, even if this means 
> downgrading versions and reintroducing other, more severe, bugs.

That is something for the user to decide.  I just want to provide instructions
on how to do it.  I do have contacts with the LSB maintainers and may be able to
get changes made if they enhance Linux distros in general (not just LFS).

> 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.

No, no, no.  I am not proposing to *use* RPM for BLFS or LFS.  As you say, that
needs to be discussed with the LFS and BLFS communities.  I just want to add the 

   -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list