Hello community,

I am working on a package management system following the user-based approach with simple dependency handling. Regarding this each package can contain executables/steps (scripts, binaries, ...) named:

prepare
configure
make
preinstall
install
postinstall
preremove
remove
postremove

If updating a package, first new-package's prepare, configure, and make will be called. Second old-package will be removed and third new-package will be installed. Hopefully the names are self-explanatory.

This approach won't work, if some packages necessary for installation aren't self-contained - make and coreutils leap in mind. In my opinion at least the install processes of these packages have to be self-contained. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As the title implies, this is my questions:

Which packages necessary for common installation procedures aren't self-contained regarding their install process?

I hope my question is understandable, because setting commas isn't one of my best skills (and differs from German grammar a lot).

If this is purely for educational reasons then go right ahead, otherwise you should study existing package managers like rpm/yum and apt - there's no point reinventing the wheel unless you can make a better wheel.

If you read the LFS guide you'll gain a good understanding of the interdependencies between utilities, LFS has no package manager during installation so everything has to be installed in the correct order.

1 members found this post helpful.