A Suggestion For A Simple Package Manager

Frank Peters frank.peters at comcast.net
Wed Mar 18 14:24:08 PDT 2009


On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:01:47 -0600
Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> 
> 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,
> perhaps.
> 

Yes, that is correct.  The install commands are specified
in the Makefiles for a package.  If it would be possible
to redirect output from these commands to a text file, that
certainly would be a lot simpler than the approach taken
by package managers such as installwatch or CheckInstall,
which use libraries to intercept certain kernel system
calls.

Then the issue would involve the programs that build the
Makefiles for a project, which are automake and maybe some
others.

Frank Peters






More information about the lfs-support mailing list