Proper choice of package management strategy
cyphercell4 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 19 12:24:50 PST 2007
My two cents.
I'm on my second installation of lfs/blfs, and this time my goal was
to expand on what I had learned before and make the system more
manageable. This included installing and using a package manager of
some sort. I considered package_users, apt, portage, rpm, and yast.
Apt and Portage were easily my favorites for the simplicity of Apt and
the ability of Portage to install from source (seems fitting right?)
After thinking about it, it occured to me that installing Portage
would effectively make my system a Gentoo system rather than an LFS
system. I then came across a hint for apt that describes how to
install Debian via the package manager alone. It then occured to me
that all great distributions seem to be defined by their package
manager (Red Hat - rpm, Slackware - Tarball, Debian - Apt, Gentoo -
Portage, Suse - Yast), I then decided that LFS is a great distribution
and package_users was unique to LFS. I'm using the hint for
more_control_package_users and I am quite happy. I think the best
thing about package_users is that I understand what it's doing and how
it works without too much trouble. This makes it easy for me to
customize, which I think LFS is all about.
Anyways, that's how I recently came to my decision of which PM to use.
More information about the lfs-support