Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I would like to add RPM to BLFS because it is required for a system to be > compliant with the Linux Standards Base.
Which version? 4.x and 5.x are completely different beasts. Anyway, LFS contains a severe deviation from LSB (no libncurses.so.5 by default, only a non-standard wide-character version, but here the standard is wrong), thus, I don't think that it is a good idea to use this "standard" as a rationale. Anyway, if you want (B)LFS to be LSB-compliant, you'll need to do a lot more things: 1) ld-lsb.so.3 -> ld-linux.so.2 symlink 2) a fake "lsb" RPM, because the standard requires that LSB packages must be installed without --nodeps 3) run their binary testsuite and fix all failures, even if this means downgrading versions and reintroducing other, more severe, bugs. See http://bugs.debian.org/401006 as an example that I would like to avoid. As for your proposal to put RPM into BLFS, I think this has to be discussed in LFS, too. Reason: package management belongs in the next-generation LFS, and it is an option to have it there, as opposed to BLFS. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
