Gordon Schumacher wrote: > Gordon Schumacher wrote: >> I think I have an even better idea: rather than putting *any* >> package management commands in, what about something like this: >> >> <para>If you would like to generate binary packages, you will need >> to define a function that will be used to generate those packages. >> Run a command similar to the following:</para> >> >> ... >> >> Then, in the XML for each package: >> >> <para>If desired, perform the fakeroot install and build the >> package</para> >> >> ... >> >> I think that this would satisfy all the desires stated: not >> supporting a specific package manager, supporting package >> management if people want it, and still allowing for automation! > > So... does this look reasonable to folks? Anyone have any objections > to me working on implementing this against the current trunk and > submitting it as a patch?
Ideally, I'd want something in the XML to do something like the shell script if. However, that could easily be a long way off, so I have no objections to something like this at the moment. In fact, I really like the idea of having a generic no-specific-manager setup, which also degrades gracefully. True, it doesn't handle config files properly (yet? unsure if it could be made to do so), but as a first shot, it looks pretty good to me. For whatever that's worth. :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
