From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IfBAD-0004ig-CC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:14:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l99930Rf009671; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:03:00 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.169]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9990OuN005932 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:00:24 GMT Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so53445ugf for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:00:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0z1Z31nssybcQrkxmWHtLJf7YZjYsMG0Tzs0E2Opkn4=; b=Y8a4uMBNoTrDIPL3Ltlbv7Lra/u+Rm66rI2pgZDqYLfLXTREUZZMn7ltZznR1ePWHA3ycsE4xY780HUaFzDgOI2SgAvrI9MKB4df4pSS4djEm8uOoeoqok+2ujvmZE16QR4bYNsQFMKNUzndOjhwUlX6S7q2NbT7IW4gA/bPeGs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=h8Oy4C+r1RMuAzw429PuHajoMUCaezLbWq7/2GB5KXlXYqK/ctMojfdTgZO3ETNhhWO1ZljV2G1rnqtQr/pyh/J4A5SMgRU6bGpXmn+kPt6Mu1lAsP0xBi5D5s1YT8JRfu0n0OgadCLgMPB4eejSunzc3pvOfbOMEd/mkoVWmcQ= Received: by 10.66.217.12 with SMTP id p12mr562515ugg.1191920423692; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.65.211? ( [213.234.126.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z33sm8822285ikz.2007.10.09.02.00.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass) From: Natanael Copa To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <200710012259.40589.uberlord@gentoo.org> <4709071F.6010900@gentoo.org> <20071007221505.GJ2848@gentoo.org> <200710072151.03442.vapier@gentoo.org> <4709A35B.6070407@gentoo.org> <1191833415.31670.41.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org> <1191855757.31670.75.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:00:20 +0200 Message-Id: <1191920420.10822.41.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2ab081ee-0ad4-4ba8-a23d-ab8141269802 X-Archives-Hash: f6745fd9504e76817416befeedfa6849 On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 20:25 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Natanael Copa wrote: > If you're that motivated why not just start hacking on binary support in > portage/pkgcore/paludis? There's always open bugs. I think I did contribute with some patches for qmerge in portage-utils. Unfortunally, its pretty difficult to make a lightweight C (language) only binary installer without having at least the eclasses and GNU tools. It kind of defeat the idea of having a lightweight binary only runtime environment. (lightweight means busybox - which give you most of the basic GNU tools, linux-utils, wget, shell, http server and much more for the size of bash only) > >> Your own binary only package manager would still need to provide > >> Option #2; ie you need to have GNU tools installed to process the > >> binary packages. pkg_* functions could still have GNU stuff in them > >> and those still get run during a binary package install. > > > > If we would like to be able to do binary installs without the GNU tools, > > what alternatives do we have? > > > > > > Any other alternatives? > > > > Comments? > > > I'd just specify BASH (as I don't see the point in making the distinction as > it only applies to build machines) and coreutils/findutils etc. To properly install a prebuilt binary packages you need the pkg_* funcs in the ebuild. > Asking everyone to switch coding style for certain functions, just to > support the stuff that Gentoo was designed to do from the beginning, seems > counter-productive. We already do different for init.d scripts (which is great!) , but sure, I get the point. > For every market except embedded, which we've discussed > already, BASH is not a major issue: nor are the other tools mentioned. I happen to do embedded. > > > > Alternative C is what I do today. > > > Sounds rough :) Thats why I'm interested in alternatives. > (I really would recommend #pkgcore as well as there is several years of work > to do with binpkgs in that.) So far no packagemanager using the portage stuff (eclasses) are not even close to compete in size for binary only installs. Closest is portage-utils's qmerge but it would need atleast the eclasses and bash which would atleast double the size in comparison what I do today. Looks like i will need to continue do my own stuff. Thanks for you time! > Standardising on a certain subset of base GNU tools seems like a good idea > to me too. -nc -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list