A Suggestion For A Simple Package Manager

Mike McCarty Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 18 14:01:47 PDT 2009

Frank Peters wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:46:08 -0500
> Tushar Teredesai <tushar at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>> Because that goes against the Unix developer mentality. Providing an
>> "checkinstall" style functionality is not the purpose of make.
>> According to the man page: "The purpose of the make utility is to
>> determine automatically which pieces of a large program need to be
>> recompiled, and issue the commands to recompile them."
> Well, the make program *does* indicate where each file has been
> installed.  If you examine the console output of make, all

Often Makefiles don't do the install themselves, but
rather either us "cp" or "install" to put things where
they go, when one uses "make install". I don't like
the idea of making "make" have purposeful output to track
versions and installs. ISTM that one should use a special
tool, like "install" for that. "make" is supposed to be
a tool which other tools can use, not a Swiss Army Knife.

Having "install" track what has been put where sounds
like a reasonable idea, and if it provides specially
tagged output upon request, that could be captured and used,

I'm not an "install" expert. Maybe it already does that.

> the install information is there but it is mixed in with all
> sorts of other messages.  It would be possible to redirect

That's not clear to me.

> the make output to a text file and then edit the file to remove
> all the extraneous messages and thereby produce a usable install
> log.
> A very useful addition, IMO, to the make program would be
> to automatically redirect just the install information to a file
> as an option.  This should not be too difficult to accomplish
> but it may have to done along with the other build utilities
> such as autoconf, automake, etc.
> Frank Peters

Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

More information about the lfs-support mailing list