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 126.96.36.199.
> 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
> 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
More information about the blfs-dev