M.Canales.es wrote:
I take note of all that request.
But remember that the current BLFS code is only POC developed to see if BLFS
packages installation could be automatized in some degree, specially in
relation with dependencies tracking. The generated scripts have several bugs
for now
I suspected it wasn't quite ready yet, but I'm using it anyway ;) It
looks promising.
With modifications, I've already build nfs-utils and xorg using jhablfs.
The things I've noticed so far is as I wrote in one of the previous posts;
- Some patches don't get parsed into the build scripts.
- The blfs-bootscripts aren't handled properly. (or more correctly, not
at all :))
And finally something (hopefully) positive:
I'm trying to incorporate Paco package manager into the dump_*.xsl
scripts. Seems like it's gonna be quite easy to pull that one off, so if
anyone's interested just say so, and I'll put the patch on the list as
soon as I'm ready. Btw: is this already done by someone else? :)
If you want PACO support, please try to do the work against the jhalfs code
found in the experimental branch. The code in trunk is in maintenance mode,
and only for LFS support, and will be overwritten by the experimental code in
a no very far future.
That's ok, I'm using svn version.
I've tested the jhahlfs and jhablfs. Both uClibc and Glibc versions og
HLFS have been built successfully. Only one minor thing with jhahlfs I
can remember, the locales package for uClibc had the wrong file
extension. It was downloaded with *.tar.gz extension, but the build of
uClibc wants a *.tgz file. Guess that's more an issue in the HLFS book
and file mirrors, but worth mentioning.
We will be very happy adding the patch or plugging to the sources as an
external contribution (the same for other package managements if someone like
to write it).
Sounds nice.
I'll post the patch as soon as I get it working properly. For now it
will only be a patch for people who really wants to use Paco. I'll try
to make it optional in the config file later, so that it could be
implemented in the real script itself if accepted by the maintainers.
I'll try making other package managers work when I'm done with Paco, as
I would prefer an RPM-like system myself. Any preferences by other users
to which PM should be used? Personally I've only used 'package users
hint' and Paco for LFS, and RPM with RedHat (a long time ago), so any
new insights would be useful.
Tor Olav
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
