Package systems and stuff

Robert Connolly robert at
Tue May 11 18:38:24 PDT 2004

On May 11, 2004 08:36 pm, Archaic wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:33PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> > What do you guys think about using a bsd-like source tree (using
> > /sources)? I
> Seems a bit too out there. Takes away our focus, IMO.

I thought of this because we don't need a system that can make binary 
packages, just a way of being organized. Its not just for vanity. Many of the 
packages can build in an seperate directory, for a read-only source tree, but 
there's an interesting problem with gcc & perl since it uses different 
patches from chap5 to 6. Cross building would be more managable, or at least 
this would give a framework for it. The permissions and ownerships of the 
source would be better controlled; a package builder user would only need 
write permission to the object directory and not the source itself, and then 
only needs group read so (modified) source isn't world readable. A small file 
could have the patch name and commands used to make /sources/bin/bash/ so 
diehard users could still make their own tree. At least from my perspective 
importing the core into one tree is easier to manage. It will also make it 
easier to manage glibc and 2.6 headers in the future.

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list