Package dependencies

James Robertson jameswrobertson at
Wed Jun 18 14:20:53 PDT 2003

Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> I still think the best way to do this is doing  things manually. I've 
>> gone to a more direct approach: have empty /bin /sbin /usr/bin and 
>> /usr/sbin directories and an empty $PATH as well. Just run ./configure 
>> and you will get a fatal error of a program missing.
> A symlink style package management approach would be helpful for this.
>> Add this program to the proper dir (ie /bin) and rerun configure. Then 
>> when configure runs properly, on to 'make' and 'make install'.
> Would it be easier/logical for the book to just include package 
> dependencies? e.g. Package glibc depends on Packages gcc, binutils, 
> make, coreutils, ...

Don't the freshmeat pages have this info?

> If someone needs a more fine grained dependency list, the book should 
> suggest the above approach (which could be converted into a hint).

That is not a bad idea.  We could write a page near the beginning of ch5 
explaing in more detail why we do ch5 in the first place (more than we 
do now) and how the "toolbox" as I call it has to be put together in a 
certain order, because of the dependancies.  This could then lead the 
reader to "if you want to know the method that the LFS editors use to do 
package dependancy checking, read this hint..."  The hint would/could be 
helpfull for the BLFS folks as well.

I just know the monumental task of going though the packages for the 
next update is going to be a pain.

What do the big guys (RedHat, SuSE, etc) do?  Or are they so "in tune" 
with the packages, that they know what the dependancies are?

James Robertson | jameswrobertson at
Reg. Linux User: #160424
Reg. LFS User:   #6981

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list