An idea for a new development model

[taipan67]

Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I'm going to tentatively vote -1 for package management in LFS -- that
> is, unless it doesn't break my current package management setup
> (pkg-user hint FTW!).  If the changes don't break the pkg-user hint,
> then I'd say +1; it's worth a shot at least.  DESTDIR=$dest on all the
> packages, for instance, shouldn't hurt if $dest is empty.
>
>   
Obviously $dest must be "chgrp install && chmod 1775" in such a case, 
but beyond that i found it actually _improved_ on the pkgusr method - it 
even negates one or two of the gremlins mentioned in the hint, & allows 
for additional install-dir's to be correctly created when needed, like 
during X-installation.

There are a couple of packages in LFS that don't play nice with $DESTDIR 
(i think 'shadow' was one), but hopefully more adept minds than mine 
would be able to resolve those issues, if this proposal goes forward...

taipan