On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:03:29 +0600 "Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote: > > If you use some little odd-ball PM, rather than, say RPM you will > > end up spending more development effort on the PM than on the > > LiveCD. > > I have tried privately (but together with Jeremy) to add RPM > to /tools in LFS and convert all instructions to spec files. Result: > I abandoned the effort because I could not get it right. RPM is > indeed suitable for easy removal of packages, but my copy didn't pass > the "all official features are supported" test. AFAIR, it failed to > handle file conflicts correctly. So, after more than two weeks of > fighting with it, I was with the rpm binary that is only marginally > more capable than the pre-existing (and tried) Slackware scripts. I wasn't singling out RPM, especially - and your comments are germaine. I just think that it should be a mainstream PM, maybe RPM, Apt or Portage is too much, maybe Pacman is ideal. I don't have the knowledge. But I do know that any development model that doesn't choose it's core tools wisely ends up being a tools development project - remember my background (CTO). > And BTW, could you please test the 6.3 pre-releases of the CD? 6.2 is > dead. I will if I can find them. Is lfslivecd-x86-6.3-minimal-pre1.iso the one to use? The Readme isn't helpful (on ftp://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/lfs-livecd/READ_ME.txt a mirror from the website, at least) and I don't sub to LiveCd list. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
