|
About:
The Linux From Scratch project is intended for Linux users who want to build their own custom Linux system. Reasons for wanting to build such a system are diverse. Perhaps you want to get into more detail as to what happens behind the scenes. Perhaps you are fed up with the bloated standard distributions. Or perhaps you don't want to rely on pre-compiled binaries out of concerns for security.
Author:
Gerard Beekmans [contact developer]
Homepage:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
Changelog:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/[..]lfs/view/stable/chapter01/changelog.html
Trove categories:
[change]
Dependencies:
[change]
No dependencies filed
|
|
» Rating:
8.91/10.00
(Rank N/A)
» Vitality: 0.01% (Rank 3863)
» Popularity: 7.18% (Rank 398)
 
(click to enlarge graphs)
Record hits: 57,466
URL hits: 42,159
Subscribers: 196
|
|
Branches
Comments
[»]
No package management
by Jakdaw - Feb 28th 2001 19:29:27
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
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No package management
by Gerard Beekmans - Feb 28th 2001 21:04:48
% 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).
--
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No package management
by Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee - Feb 28th 2001 22:08:13
> 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... =)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No package management
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Mar 1st 2001 03:18:25
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.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No package management
by Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee - Mar 1st 2001 04:41:50
>
>
> 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 ;)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No package management
by Gerard Beekmans - Mar 1st 2001 08:17:17
>
>
> 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.
--
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No package management
by Angst Badger - Feb 28th 2001 22:47:58
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.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
BSD License?
by Hacksaw - Jan 31st 2001 01:27:29
It's great that someone's doing this, but why a
BSD license? Linux (the kernel) is GPL'ed.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: BSD License?
by bdumm - Jan 31st 2001 01:46:07
> It's great that someone's doing this,
> but why a
> BSD license? Linux (the kernel) is
> GPL'ed.
>
Because it is a book, and uses the linuxdoc.org license
which is BSDish
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: BSD License?
by Hacksaw - Jan 31st 2001 07:51:57
Weird enough.
> Because it is a book, and uses the
> linuxdoc.org license
> which is BSDish
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: BSD License?
by Gerard Beekmans - Jan 31st 2001 11:41:27
> 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 http://search.linuxfromscratch.org and
read up on it.
--
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: BSD License?
by David Necas (Yeti) - Nov 6th 2003 04:38:48
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?'
[reply]
[top]
|
