bet at rahul.net
Fri Jul 30 10:13:45 PDT 2004
2004-07-30T15:58:08 John Gay:
> Has anyone here had a look at OpenPKG?
Yup. I concur with your analysis.
For its functionality I like rpm the best of the existing software
package managers. Unlike every other one I've looked at, it has
every feature I want.
Sadly, it's got more than a few features I don't have any especially
urgent desire for. Far more than a few. Rather extravagantly more
than a few:-).
I consider strong software packaging mandatory for systems I
maintain. Strong packaging, to my tastes, at a minimum:
- completely automates (i.e. _documents_) the build from the virgin
- makes it reasonably easy to update packages to track new upstream
- provides inventory and automated package removal/updating;
- provides cryptographically strong checksums.
Given those primitives I can pretty well bolt together the rest with
pieces I may have lying about the kitchen, and what's more I can
do it sooner or later, fully or partly automatic, and it makes no
difference, the foundations are all there, I'm not missing anything
by retrofitting the other convenience features after the fact.
I'd have completely ignored the staggering amount of excess cruft
that rpm has piled up over the years, in gratitude for its lovely
widespread use and so ready package availability. I was all set to,
Bent Linux started out intending to be rpm-based. Then I tried to
get a handle on the code so I could tear out the nasty Berkeley DB,
replace it with something better-suited to the operational needs and
available under a pleasing license (cdb).
When I recovered from the trauma of peeking under the hood, I
started designing my own, and I came away from the experience with
a seriously powerful, nay overwhelming demand for utter simplicity;
bpm resulted. I keep fantasizing about doing more on it, it's really
bare-bones minimalist now, but I keep finding that nothing I want
to do is hard enough with just what I have to motivate me to hack
on the tooling any more; it's all working well enough, and it's
so simple, so very simple, that I think it'll be hard to make it
anything but worse at this point.
E.g. it didn't take me long to make the edits to the appended spec
file that gave me my bash-3.0 bpm.
tar xzf bash-3.0.tar.gz
tar xzf ../bash-doc-3.0.tar.gz
CFLAGS=-Os LDFLAGS=-s ./configure --enable-static-link --enable-readline --with-installed-readline \
--prefix=/ --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
make prefix=$BPM_ROOT mandir=$BPM_ROOT/usr/share/man \
mkdir -p $BPM_ROOT/usr/share/doc/bash-3.0
cp doc/* $BPM_ROOT/usr/share/doc/bash-3.0
ln -s bash $BPM_ROOT/bin/sh
rm -f $BPM_ROOT/usr/share/info/dir
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the lfs-chat