Should the build commands be reinstallable?
maillist at hummelink.xs4all.nl
Sun Jan 4 15:57:38 PST 2004
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 00:45, Greg Schafer wrote:
> I know we do take this line in some circumstances, e.g. the coreutils
> hostname patch, but what about in general?
> Currently, there is a bunch of packages that fail to reinstall when using
> the book's commands, mainly due to use of "ln -s" instead of "ln -sf".
> There's also a couple of "mkdir" 's instead of "mkdir -p" 's as well. And
> lastly, bzip2 refuses to reinstall unless a "rm -f /usr/bin/bz*" is slipped
> in before the "make install".
> Of course, there are some sections early in Ch 6 where reinstallable
> commands don't really make sense, e.g. changingowner, creatingdirs, proc,
> createfiles, pwdgroup.
I think yes yes and yes: People who want to upgrade (for whatever
dubious reason) will refer to the book more often then not. Because of
this reason, it may be the right thing(tm) to also fix up the double
installs all over the book (coreutils' groups, shadows groups etc)
Off course the changing owner stuff cannot really be "reinstallable" but
then its not a package either thats upgradable with later releases.
As for the ln -s issue: why don't we use the -v flag a lot more. this
way it shows what it does wether it uses -f or not. (also applies to
Linux is like a small snowball rolling downhill. Microsoft is just
waiting down the mountain...
More information about the lfs-dev