Gordon Schumacher wrote: > Gordon Schumacher wrote: > > >> So what I did in my work was implement a new <sect2 role="binpackage"> >> (which in my opinion should be able to be switched on and off via >> profiling), which does the fakeroot install. The command to actually >> turn that into a SquashFS module is wrapped in a profiling switch >> specific to Linux-Live. >> > > I think I have an even better idea: rather than putting *any* package > management commands in, what about something like this: > <snip>
Personally, I see a totally different approach. I haven't thought it out fully, but my take is that if we are going to move to DESTDIR installations, please do at least the full installation of all parts completely from the DESTDIR for the sake of education. <snip> > 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! > No it doesn't. It's not enough just to tar up the DESTDIR. You need to consider installing the package (which IMO should be done by a script created in the DESTDIR after removing any updated/dynamicly generated files). That way you can create a tarball that is PM neutral and ready for any real packaging scripts that you want to throw at it. I guess my question is "What was the goal when this was decided?" 'make DESTDIR=foo install', inspect the DESTDIR, and then 'make install'? While I guess that there is nothing specifically wrong with that approach, the DESTDIR is pretty much useless IMO, might as well stick to installation logging. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
