RSS Comments for Linux From Scratch

06 Nov 2003 04:38 yeti2

Re: BSD License?
I won't argue for either license ... however, it's quite unclear what the BSD license applies to [from the FM description], so when I saw it the first time my thoughts were `WTF? How anyone can think she can relicense glibc, gcc, etc. under the original BSD license?'

01 Mar 2001 08:17 lfslinux

Re: No package management

>
>
> I do what you suggest, but don't like
> the idea of running find 2 times, so I
> install with another prefix (for
> example, glibc uses make install
> install_root=/root/glibc), do a find at
> /root/glibc, and start moving
> /root/glibc with mc. But I rarely make a
> log, my mind is better than package
> managers and make uninstall.

I used to do that, install every package in

/usr/ and leave the package there.

This made for excellent removal: rm -r /usr/x

and the package was gone. After a while my

/usr partition had a few hundred subdirectories

which wasn't a bad thing, but my $PATH

variable grew immensely. And once you install

a package somewhere moving it elsewhere is not

always recommended as some packages hard-code

certain paths (to say config.files) to the place

where you have installed them.

Right now I install everything under /usr and use

the 'find' tecnique described earlier. I have most

of that processs scripted so I don't have to run

find twice or create diff outputs myself. I run one

command with the parameter (the package name

and version) and it does the find, configure and

install. I run a ./configure --help manually to see

if I need any special configure options (which I

then pass so that script) or other options. It's

primitive and simple but effective. The result is

I have a bunch of files now, one for every package,

that list every single file that was installed by that

particular package. It can be expanded to include

files that were changed, removed, etc.

Yes, this script is based on what Jesse Tie Ten Quee

came up with and I just expanded on it to automate

it a little bit

Anyways, to make a long story short: the point is

that I love the way things work now PM wise. That's

one of the beauties of LFS. I get to pick the

software I wish to use for something.

01 Mar 2001 04:41 highos Thumbs up

Re: No package management

>
>
> I do what you suggest, but don't like
> the idea of running find 2 times, so I
> install with another prefix (for
> example, glibc uses make install
> install_root=/root/glibc), do a find at
> /root/glibc, and start moving
> /root/glibc with mc. But I rarely make a
> log, my mind is better than package
> managers and make uninstall.

The point of running two find's is one before and one after the 'make install' (and whatever else commands that install files) so you can have a list of files that get installed, with that list, using standard command-line tools you can created backups, tarballs/packages, uninstall, etcetc..

But i agree, your head is the best thing..allthough in certain cases when you have ~10 boxes to look after and they are all running different versions it's nice to have *some* means ot PM, even if it so "primitive" (hey it works, 'nuff said ;)

01 Mar 2001 03:18 fredlwm

Re: No package management

I do what you suggest, but don't like the idea of running find 2 times, so I install with another prefix (for example, glibc uses make install install_root=/root/glibc), do a find at /root/glibc, and start moving /root/glibc with mc. But I rarely make a log, my mind is better than package managers and make uninstall.

28 Feb 2001 22:47 angstbadger

Re: No package management
Hmm... I used the LFS instructions precisely because package "management" makes it really painful to upgrade core system components, especially if you don't care for the compilation options used by the existing distributions or you apply a lot of custom patches. RPM just creates a tangled mess of dependencies. Mind you, I use RPM, but just for non-essential stuff I can conveniently rip out and reinstall if I need to. I certainly don't trust a tool as crude and unintelligent as RPM with my core system, especially not in a production environment. It's too easy to trash things and too hard to clean up after.

28 Feb 2001 22:08 highos Thumbs up

Re: No package management

> Nice idea.... but you've got to be
> completely insane to attempt this sort
> of stuff without any package management.
> Someone should really point these people
> at The Encap Package Manager

That looks alot like GNU stow? eww... (personal reasons) anyways as Gerard has mentioned LFS is really just a framework, the rest is left to the users (it has been expanded quite a bit, such as the LFS HInts, ALFS, etcetc)

I personal like the style of installing i've always used for tarballs/packages (even before LFS) which is doing something similar to this;

<./configure||make||whatever||don't install anthing yet>

cd / && find >system.find && cd -

make install (or whatever and include any other commands that will install files on the box) then do it over again.

cd / && find>system.find~ && diff system.find* >packagename.find && cd -

Then just clean up packagename.find and you will have a nice listing of all the new installed packages...now this isn't as advanced as installwatch or anything else, but it gets the job done... KPMS (KISS Package Management System) myself and another LFS'er are in the middle of hacking toghether some good clear and well documented scripts for a Hint.

My $CND0.02... =)

28 Feb 2001 21:04 lfslinux

Re: No package management
% Nice idea.... but you've got to be
> completely insane to attempt this sort
> of stuff without any package management.
> Someone should really point these people
> at The Encap Package Manager

Insane...yes in a way you could call that, but

it really is not as insane as it looks. Sure, LFS

requires some active maintenance, but LFS only

provides the base. It's up to you to 'dress up' your

Linux system and add whatever solutions you may

need that includes any package management system
you may want. There are quite a few different
solutions, from using RPM to create your own scripts

to do the work. The LFS Mailinglist archives have a lot

of that information (use the search engine to search
through the archives).

28 Feb 2001 19:29 jakdaw

No package management
Nice idea.... but you've got to be completely insane to attempt this sort of stuff without any package management. Someone should really point these people at The Encap Package Manager (freshmeat.net/projects...)

31 Jan 2001 11:41 lfslinux

Re: BSD License?

> Weird enough.
>
> % Because it is a book, and uses the
> % linuxdoc.org license
> % which is BSDish
>
>
>

GPL is too restrictive. If LFS were to be actual software I _may_ consider GPL but even then I like BSD better. BSD just works better for a book because it allows you to use the book's contents anywhere you want, even in closed-source software if that were to be the case. And there's not a whole lot to restrict on a book really: you can't copyright fact. the LFS project is based on simple facts. Install software in a particular order and you have LFS. There's no secret to it. BSD gives people more freedom in my opinion.

This is the short form. There is a whole thread on why we went BSD, why not GPL on the LFS mailinglists. Try search.linuxfromscratc... and read up on it.

31 Jan 2001 07:51 hacksaw

Re: BSD License?
Weird enough.

> Because it is a book, and uses the
> linuxdoc.org license
> which is BSDish

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

TimeIT

A simple-to-use time tracker.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

newLISP

A Lisp-like, general-purpose scripting language.