Alexander E. Patrakov
patrakov at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 22:50:07 PDT 2008
2008/4/22, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com>:
> 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 220.127.116.11.
There is also http://rpm5.org/ with RPM-18.104.22.168, developed
independently (as a fork) by Jeff Johnson. But, before talking about
LSB using RPM, please see that Jeff Johnson considers this design
choice to be a mistake:
(yes, the whole archive of this mailng list, it is only 33 messages,
and most of them are directly applicable to RPMv4, too).
> > 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.
See http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1049 and
> > 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.
OK. Let me summarize.
It is a good idea to put RPM and/or rpm2cpio.sh to BLFS, in order for
the reader to be able to install LSB-based packages (i.e.: clearly
state the goal of installing RPM, see also the next paragraph).
However, additional LSB dependencies (initscripts, PAM,
non-wide-character ncurses, ld-lsb.so.3, lsb.rpm, optional binary
testsuite, what else?) must also be mentioned.
As for the goal: it should include "being able to install most LSB
packages", this is not the same as "being LSB compliant" (which may
lead to data corruption in the case of upstream problems, if followed
religiously). It should also be said that it is too late to build RPM
in BLFS in order to manage already installed packages and to install
non-LSB packages, because the dependency resolution always fails (root
cause: glibc is not recorded in the RPM database).
With the disclaimers similar to the above, I agree that RPM and/or
rpm2cpio.sh should be included in post-6.3 BLFS (even if LFS adopts
some form of package management, because the plan, as I see it, is to
include more than one package manager, and thus RPM will still be
optional in LFS).
Alexander E. Patrakov
More information about the blfs-dev