Proper choice of package management strategy

Eric Stout stout at lost-soul.net
Wed Jan 17 14:05:54 PST 2007


> currently I am setting up my first LFS build, which I do primarily to learn more about linux, while great performance or flexibility are less important (My machine is a standard Athlon i586 PC).
>
> On the other hand I also want to have a certain possibility to upgrade single packages (apart from toolchain stuff, as discussed earlier) without rebuilding all.
>
> The Book excludes any recommendations about which pack'man' to use, which doesn't make it easy for newbies. So, I have (1) the suggestion to the Book's developers to add a "if you don't know at all, take this strategy" sentence, and (2) the following question to the whole list:
>
>
> Which strategy do you recommend/what are the pro/cons of this choice?
>
>
> Currently, I feel most attracted to the "Separate dir" or "Symlink Style" possibilities, unless you strongly recommend sth else...

I would recomend a "seperate dir" approach, where you install stuff to
/usr/local/app-versionmajor.minor.rev and symlink the binaries to /usr/bin
(or /usr/sbin).

For a linux newbie, I would emphasise the importance of a stable system
versus an "up to date" system.  Just because a package has been released
with a new feature doesn't necessarily mean you need to update the
package.

When it comes to security fixes, installing the newly compiled binaries
over the top of the older ones _generally_ doesn't cause a problem
(emphasis on "generally", sometimes a package specifically states not to
do this).

Eric





More information about the lfs-support mailing list