RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz

[Gerard Beekmans]

> As far as I understand, the outcome was (roughly) that LFS needs to provide at 
> least a no-PM and PM versions, with a well-known PM. And a requirement has been 
> formulated that the commands must match between these two versions (thus ruling 
> out %configure for RPM). Now Bruce wonders if we create a source RPM for each 

I think we simply have to make sure both versions use the same commands. 
The end result should be you (collective you, not you personally) ending 
up with a system that is identical no matter which build method was 
chosen that time.

> package. The answer (obvious from a sample implementation that has been posted 
> already to this list, and from Dan's work) is that we don't create a source RPM, 
> but a spec file indeed has to be created for each package. There is no way to 
> use RPM without spec files.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about that earlier. I don't want us to ship 
binary packages. I would like to use a PM that builds the binaries from 
source code just as you were doing it manually and then tar'ing up the 
resulting installed files for re-deployment (on the same or other 
similar systems).

> The second question (how to use a PM in LFS) is left unanswered, because of its 
> inexact formulation. I don't see any other way for RPM except writing a spec 
> file, running "rpm -bb" on it, and installing the resulting binary package with 
> "rpm -i" onto one or more systems, and the same principle applies to every other 
> DESTDIR-based package manager.

That's exactly how I envisioned it.

Gerard