[gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Bryce Porter]

Tom:
"I'm just thinking along the lines of a minimum binary system where
absolutley needed, and compiling specifically everywhere else? I realise this would
be slow to install on slower systems, but, since we're all power users... ;)

Seriously though, I do think this would be a nice feature, unless there's
some practicality reason I'm missing."
-------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is a great idea. I heard of a GNU/Linux distrobution that
when installed compiled all selected packages from source, making it the
most optimized you could get for your specific machine. I think it was
called Rock Linux or something.

Anyway, I think Tom, yet again, has a very wonderful idea. It may take
awhile to install, but think of how much it would be worth it :)

Later,
Bryce

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Thomas Flavel]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:29:01PM -0600, Bryce Porter wrote:
> 
> Tom:
> "I'm just thinking along the lines of a minimum binary system where
> absolutley needed, and compiling specifically everywhere else? I realise this would
> be slow to install on slower systems, but, since we're all power users... ;)
> 
> Seriously though, I do think this would be a nice feature, unless there's
> some practicality reason I'm missing."
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think this is a great idea. I heard of a GNU/Linux distrobution that
> when installed compiled all selected packages from source, making it the
> most optimized you could get for your specific machine. I think it was
> called Rock Linux or something.

Not heard of it, but a quick search on google reveals the predicatable url:
http://www.rocklinux.org, #rocklinux on irc.openprojects.net. 

Looks to be faily mature (at least they're past 1.0 ;), supports ppc and alpha
as well as x86. From what I can see it has a binary cd version, with the option
to compile from source (the same thing I was talking about, if I understand them
correctly). It describes it's package management as closer to FreeBSD than debian.
It looks to be quite similar to gentoo to me, although not quite as advanced.
No offence if they're listening ;)

- Tom

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Achim Gottinger]

Thomas Flavel wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:29:01PM -0600, Bryce Porter wrote:
> >
> > Tom:
> > "I'm just thinking along the lines of a minimum binary system where
> > absolutley needed, and compiling specifically everywhere else? I realise this would
> > be slow to install on slower systems, but, since we're all power users... ;)
> >
> > Seriously though, I do think this would be a nice feature, unless there's
> > some practicality reason I'm missing."
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I think this is a great idea. I heard of a GNU/Linux distrobution that
> > when installed compiled all selected packages from source, making it the
> > most optimized you could get for your specific machine. I think it was
> > called Rock Linux or something.
>
> Not heard of it, but a quick search on google reveals the predicatable url:
> http://www.rocklinux.org, #rocklinux on irc.openprojects.net.
>
> Looks to be faily mature (at least they're past 1.0 ;), supports ppc and alpha
> as well as x86.

Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do the ports. :-)

> From what I can see it has a binary cd version, with the option
> to compile from source (the same thing I was talking about, if I understand them
> correctly). It describes it's package management as closer to FreeBSD than debian.
> It looks to be quite similar to gentoo to me, although not quite as advanced.

I took a look at the site and think that we need something similar to cfengine
sometimes.

I thougth about a minimum build system too, while I had to go back to i486 from i686.
There is another project linux-from-scratch (www.lfs.org i think) that creates a
statically linked set
of packages required for build first and then builds the rest with that bin's. Such a
set would require
about 50MB and it is not difficult to make a few modified packages for that.
This build-system could be placed on a gentoo-source cd together with a snapshot of the
port-tree.
Then you whould be able to boot with the source-cd and install a build.tbz2 instead of a
sys.tbz2.
Then you can chroot to that system and build everything from sources.
Additionally this offers the possibility to build gentoo from within another
linux-distro.

How do you guys think about that?

Bye Achim

>
> No offence if they're listening ;)
>
> - Tom
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Thomas Flavel]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:18:48PM +0100, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> Thomas Flavel wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:29:01PM -0600, Bryce Porter wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom:
> > > "I'm just thinking along the lines of a minimum binary system where
> > > absolutley needed, and compiling specifically everywhere else? I realise this would
> > > be slow to install on slower systems, but, since we're all power users... ;)
> > >
> > > Seriously though, I do think this would be a nice feature, unless there's
> > > some practicality reason I'm missing."
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I think this is a great idea. I heard of a GNU/Linux distrobution that
> > > when installed compiled all selected packages from source, making it the
> > > most optimized you could get for your specific machine. I think it was
> > > called Rock Linux or something.
> >
> > Not heard of it, but a quick search on google reveals the predicatable url:
> > http://www.rocklinux.org, #rocklinux on irc.openprojects.net.
> >
> > Looks to be faily mature (at least they're past 1.0 ;), supports ppc and alpha
> > as well as x86.
> 
> Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do the ports. :-)

I have access to SH3, Arm, possibly Sparc (less possibly ultrasparc :) and ppc, all of
which I would like to have running gentoo :)

> 
> > From what I can see it has a binary cd version, with the option
> > to compile from source (the same thing I was talking about, if I understand them
> > correctly). It describes it's package management as closer to FreeBSD than debian.
> > It looks to be quite similar to gentoo to me, although not quite as advanced.
> 
> I took a look at the site and think that we need something similar to cfengine
> sometimes.

That looks like a great idea; I was wondering about something similar for configuring
applications; i.e. some way to save a "theme" for the applications I use (e.g. colours
for lynx matching the colours for man pages etc if you see what I mean)

> 
> I thougth about a minimum build system too, while I had to go back to i486 from i686.
> There is another project linux-from-scratch (www.lfs.org i think) that creates a
> statically linked set
> of packages required for build first and then builds the rest with that bin's. Such a
> set would require
> about 50MB and it is not difficult to make a few modified packages for that.
> This build-system could be placed on a gentoo-source cd together with a snapshot of the
> port-tree.
> Then you whould be able to boot with the source-cd and install a build.tbz2 instead of a
> sys.tbz2.
> Then you can chroot to that system and build everything from sources.
> Additionally this offers the possibility to build gentoo from within another
> linux-distro.
> 
> How do you guys think about that?

Sounds excellent to me :)

- Tom

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Gabriel]

I'd love to get that working myself.  I have a Ross SparcPlug, running Debian
right now.  My priority is to get what you have already put together to work
on my machine :).  That being said, there isn't much reason Gentoo couldn't work
on the Sparc, and I'd be glad to help with it.  The sticking point is that as of now
(afaik) there is no GRUB for sparc.  We'd have to use SILO.  Not a big deal.

Yeah, everyone has an idea, but y'all are doing the work :)  I do have a thought
though.  I got Debian Hurd running a couple of weeks ago, and it has come a long
way.  With the next iso bundle (Hurd-E1), I really think there could be a 
foundation for the first non-debian hurd release.  Gentoo would be perfect.
Especially if the base system only included FSF software.  That's another
thing I'd be interested in playing with.

> > 
> > Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do the ports. :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Achim Gottinger]

Gabriel wrote:

> I'd love to get that working myself.  I have a Ross SparcPlug, running Debian
> right now.  My priority is to get what you have already put together to work
> on my machine :).  That being said, there isn't much reason Gentoo couldn't work
> on the Sparc, and I'd be glad to help with it.  The sticking point is that as of now
> (afaik) there is no GRUB for sparc.  We'd have to use SILO.  Not a big deal.
>

Fine, we only need a dep package for portage and spython first, maybe spython should place
the libs to
a special subdir so id not intereferes with deb's python. I have no experienve with
dep-packages, can you
try to to this?

>
> Yeah, everyone has an idea, but y'all are doing the work :)  I do have a thought
> though.  I got Debian Hurd running a couple of weeks ago, and it has come a long
> way.  With the next iso bundle (Hurd-E1), I really think there could be a
> foundation for the first non-debian hurd release.  Gentoo would be perfect.
> Especially if the base system only included FSF software.  That's another
> thing I'd be interested in playing with.

Sounds like a big piece of work. :-)

achim~

>
>
> > >
> > > Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do the ports. :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[drobbins]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 07:05:05AM -0600, Gabriel wrote:

> Yeah, everyone has an idea, but y'all are doing the work :)  I do have a thought
> though.  I got Debian Hurd running a couple of weeks ago, and it has come a long
> way.  With the next iso bundle (Hurd-E1), I really think there could be a 
> foundation for the first non-debian hurd release.  Gentoo would be perfect.
> Especially if the base system only included FSF software.  That's another
> thing I'd be interested in playing with.

A question -- could you give us a quick overview of the differences between HURD and
the Linux kernel?  I'm curious about what new things HURD offers.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

[gentoo-dev] Hurd

[Gabriel]

> A question -- could you give us a quick overview of the differences between HURD and
> the Linux kernel?  I'm curious about what new things HURD offers.

This deserves a longer answer and I will post one when I have a bigger block
of time, but a few observations:

The hardware support is still much worse than linux.  There isn't incentive to 
do too much there for the Hurd team yet (chicken and egg... need a dist before
anyone really cares, need drivers to make a dist interesting enough to care
about).  It supports a modest list of ethernet cards and scsi controllers, 
and with X can support whatever video cards X can, but it as of now has no
sound driver at all.

Things are funky because it is a microkernel.  For instance, there is a login server, which runs under the 'login' id.  You login at a prompt like

login> login myusername

This is different than the unix 'getty' stuff.

A great deal of commands you normally run (mount, ifconfig, etc...) are obviated by a new command, "settrans".  This is because ext2fs, cd9660, pf_inet, etc, i
are translator daemons, not just devices in the unix sense.  This "herd of
daemons" is what really makes this different from Linux.  The kernel is
very minimal.  These daemons do sort of what modules do under linux, though
the analogy isn't really appropriate.  One of the side effects of this
is that the daemons are proper programs.  You can run them with --help 
apart from settrans, and they will list their own options.  How often I 
wish I could do that with a module.

Another good thing about this is people can develop kernel version independent
modules; making the distribution of drivers a lot simpler.  Ironically, this
will probably encourage the distribution of binary drivers if Hurd does
catch on.

There are some things that don't work as of now.  Irritatingly, one of them is 
df.  Booting from CD is also a problem.  Both of these apparently stem from 
the way inodes are currently handled.  These aren't insurmountable, but it
doesn't look like a lot of process has been made.  It is currently x86 only
as far as I know.  The limited hardware support is reminiscent of the 
oldest versions of Linux.

BTW, I am not a Hurd developer; just a guy that installed it for kicks, so if
my information is not factual, please keep me honest.  I am enthusiastic about
this because the most recent debian builds are better than I think a lot of
people realize, and there is a lot of opportunity to shape the way it evolves,
and the Portage system sounds like the right way, the GNU way, to do it.

--Gabriel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hurd

[drobbins]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:48:27AM -0600, Gabriel wrote:
> > A question -- could you give us a quick overview of the differences between HURD and
> > the Linux kernel?  I'm curious about what new things HURD offers.
> 
> This deserves a longer answer and I will post one when I have a bigger block
> of time, but a few observations:

[snip-o-rama]

> BTW, I am not a Hurd developer; just a guy that installed it for kicks, so if
> my information is not factual, please keep me honest.  I am enthusiastic about
> this because the most recent debian builds are better than I think a lot of
> people realize, and there is a lot of opportunity to shape the way it evolves,
> and the Portage system sounds like the right way, the GNU way, to do it.

OK, nifty.  Would you be interested in looking into this?  The first step would
be to port Portage to HURD.  You'd need to port python if it isn't yet available
on HURD, but that's about it.  The next step would be to create a bunch of ebuilds,
and the third step would be to rebuild a complete system using portage.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hurd

[Gabriel]

Sure, I'll throw a few cycles at it and see what I come up with.

> OK, nifty.  Would you be interested in looking into this?  The first step would
> be to port Portage to HURD.  You'd need to port python if it isn't yet available
> on HURD, but that's about it.  The next step would be to create a bunch of ebuilds,
> and the third step would be to rebuild a complete system using portage.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Jerry A!]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:52:52AM -0700, drobbins@gentoo.org wrote:
: On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 07:05:05AM -0600, Gabriel wrote:
: 
: > Yeah, everyone has an idea, but y'all are doing the work :)  I do have a thought
: > though.  I got Debian Hurd running a couple of weeks ago, and it has come a long
: > way.  With the next iso bundle (Hurd-E1), I really think there could be a 
: > foundation for the first non-debian hurd release.  Gentoo would be perfect.
: > Especially if the base system only included FSF software.  That's another
: > thing I'd be interested in playing with.

Actually, base system isn't only FSF.  The default tarball used
BerkeleyDB, OpenSSH, Perl (which while is GPL'd, isn't owned by the
FSF), etc...

Yeah, I'm being a stickler, but I'm having a bad at work, so you all get
to suffer!!!!  8)

        --Jerry

name:  Jerry Alexandratos         ||  Open-Source software isn't a
phone: 703.599.6023               ||  matter of life or death...
email: jerry@akopia.com           ||  ...It's much more important
                                  ||  than that!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Gabriel]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Jerry A! wrote:
> Actually, base system isn't only FSF.  The default tarball used
> BerkeleyDB, OpenSSH, Perl (which while is GPL'd, isn't owned by the
> FSF), etc...

I meant "the mythical not yet provided base system", which I suppose would
make it not Gentoo.  I have a dream of bootstrapping to a minimal system, and
having an ebuild for every package at ftp.gnu.org.  I wonder what RMS would
do once he actually had what he asked for.

Gabriel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Jerry A!]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:37:07PM -0600, Gabriel wrote:
: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Jerry A! wrote:
: > Actually, base system isn't only FSF.  The default tarball used
: > BerkeleyDB, OpenSSH, Perl (which while is GPL'd, isn't owned by the
: > FSF), etc...
: 
: I meant "the mythical not yet provided base system", which I suppose would
: make it not Gentoo.  I have a dream of bootstrapping to a minimal system, and
: having an ebuild for every package at ftp.gnu.org.  I wonder what RMS would
: do once he actually had what he asked for.

What would you do without SSH?  There isn't a working GPL version.
Likewise, the only GPL'd MTA is exim.  I happen to love it, but most
people usually look at Postfix or qmail as alternatives to sendmail.

All I'm saying is don't limit yourself by sharing RMS's jingoistic
tunnel-vision.

The true strength of Gentoo is that it's best-of-breed and not limit of
scope.

        --Jerry

name:  Jerry Alexandratos         ||  Open-Source software isn't a
phone: 703.599.6023               ||  matter of life or death...
email: jerry@akopia.com           ||  ...It's much more important
                                  ||  than that!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[drobbins]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:37:07PM -0600, Gabriel wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Jerry A! wrote:
> > Actually, base system isn't only FSF.  The default tarball used
> > BerkeleyDB, OpenSSH, Perl (which while is GPL'd, isn't owned by the
> > FSF), etc...
> 
> I meant "the mythical not yet provided base system", which I suppose would
> make it not Gentoo.  I have a dream of bootstrapping to a minimal system, and
> having an ebuild for every package at ftp.gnu.org.  I wonder what RMS would
> do once he actually had what he asked for.

Well, not all GNU software is at ftp.gnu.org.  Berkeley DB is developed at
Sleepycat Software, and glibc depends on it.  Many "official" GNU programs
depend on "unofficial" GNU programs to either build or run.

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Achim Gottinger]

Thomas Flavel wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:18:48PM +0100, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> > Thomas Flavel wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:29:01PM -0600, Bryce Porter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom:
> > > > "I'm just thinking along the lines of a minimum binary system where
> > > > absolutley needed, and compiling specifically everywhere else? I realise this would
> > > > be slow to install on slower systems, but, since we're all power users... ;)
> > > >
> > > > Seriously though, I do think this would be a nice feature, unless there's
> > > > some practicality reason I'm missing."
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a great idea. I heard of a GNU/Linux distrobution that
> > > > when installed compiled all selected packages from source, making it the
> > > > most optimized you could get for your specific machine. I think it was
> > > > called Rock Linux or something.
> > >
> > > Not heard of it, but a quick search on google reveals the predicatable url:
> > > http://www.rocklinux.org, #rocklinux on irc.openprojects.net.
> > >
> > > Looks to be faily mature (at least they're past 1.0 ;), supports ppc and alpha
> > > as well as x86.
> >
> > Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do the ports. :-)
>
> I have access to SH3, Arm, possibly Sparc (less possibly ultrasparc :) and ppc, all of
> which I would like to have running gentoo :)

Cool, I think the first step is getting spython, portage and gcc-2.95.2 running. With that it
should be possible
to build that minium-build system I described below for that targets.

>
>
> >
> > > From what I can see it has a binary cd version, with the option
> > > to compile from source (the same thing I was talking about, if I understand them
> > > correctly). It describes it's package management as closer to FreeBSD than debian.
> > > It looks to be quite similar to gentoo to me, although not quite as advanced.
> >
> > I took a look at the site and think that we need something similar to cfengine
> > sometimes.
>
> That looks like a great idea; I was wondering about something similar for configuring
> applications; i.e. some way to save a "theme" for the applications I use (e.g. colours
> for lynx matching the colours for man pages etc if you see what I mean)

You mean the user-specific dor-config-files?

>
>
> >
> > I thougth about a minimum build system too, while I had to go back to i486 from i686.
> > There is another project linux-from-scratch (www.lfs.org i think) that creates a
> > statically linked set
> > of packages required for build first and then builds the rest with that bin's. Such a
> > set would require
> > about 50MB and it is not difficult to make a few modified packages for that.
> > This build-system could be placed on a gentoo-source cd together with a snapshot of the
> > port-tree.
> > Then you whould be able to boot with the source-cd and install a build.tbz2 instead of a
> > sys.tbz2.
> > Then you can chroot to that system and build everything from sources.
> > Additionally this offers the possibility to build gentoo from within another
> > linux-distro.
> >
> > How do you guys think about that?
>
> Sounds excellent to me :)

I have nearly finished that :-)

~achim

>
>
> - Tom
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Thomas Flavel]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:03:01PM +0100, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> > >
> > > > From what I can see it has a binary cd version, with the option
> > > > to compile from source (the same thing I was talking about, if I understand them
> > > > correctly). It describes it's package management as closer to FreeBSD than debian.
> > > > It looks to be quite similar to gentoo to me, although not quite as advanced.
> > >
> > > I took a look at the site and think that we need something similar to cfengine
> > > sometimes.
> >
> > That looks like a great idea; I was wondering about something similar for configuring
> > applications; i.e. some way to save a "theme" for the applications I use (e.g. colours
> > for lynx matching the colours for man pages etc if you see what I mean)
> 
> You mean the user-specific dor-config-files?
> 

Hmmm... I'm just thinking aloud here; I'm not even sure if it's a useful idea, nor am I sure 
that I can explain it satisfactorialy :/

Ok, from the users perspective, it would look like this: A default configuration skeleton would
be installed (a default ~/.bashrc etc), as it is currently. The user would then be able to
apply, um, "themes" to their configuration - for example I like the highlight colour to be red,
so I would find myself going through ~/.pinerc, ~/.lynxrc etc making them all look the same...
the same applies to things like prompts, shells, editor of choice, my favorite mail program,
/etc/hosts etc etc.

How could this theming work? I thought perhaps a central data file, containing (bear with my
example please ;) things like $FAVORITE_COLOUR etc - a script could then be run to update the
appropiate rc files.

I'm picturing the data for the skeleton rc files being part of the ebuild package; I guess it
would have to be extracted to some database reminicient of termcap...

I don't think this is particularly urgent; as I said, I'm just thinking aloud. It's just an idea
to let you reconfigure everything to the way you like it... I'm not even sure I have exaplined
it correctly... basically cfengine but extended to allow for changing variables in rc files too

- Tom

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Bill Anderson]

Achim Gottinger wrote:

> Thomas Flavel wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:29:01PM -0600, Bryce Porter wrote:
>> 
>>> Tom:
>>> "I'm just thinking along the lines of a minimum binary system where
>>> absolutley needed, and compiling specifically everywhere else? I realise this would
>>> be slow to install on slower systems, but, since we're all power users... ;)
>>> 
>>> Seriously though, I do think this would be a nice feature, unless there's
>>> some practicality reason I'm missing."
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> I think this is a great idea. I heard of a GNU/Linux distrobution that
>>> when installed compiled all selected packages from source, making it the
>>> most optimized you could get for your specific machine. I think it was
>>> called Rock Linux or something.
>> 
>> Not heard of it, but a quick search on google reveals the predicatable url:
>> http://www.rocklinux.org, #rocklinux on irc.openprojects.net.
>> 
>> Looks to be faily mature (at least they're past 1.0 ;), supports ppc and alpha
>> as well as x86.
> 
> 
> Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do the ports. :-)
> 


How about SSH access to an Alpha? Good enough? ;^)=

> 
>> From what I can see it has a binary cd version, with the option
>> to compile from source (the same thing I was talking about, if I understand them
>> correctly). It describes it's package management as closer to FreeBSD than debian.
>> It looks to be quite similar to gentoo to me, although not quite as advanced.
> 
> 
> I took a look at the site and think that we need something similar to cfengine
> sometimes.
> 
> I thougth about a minimum build system too, while I had to go back to i486 from i686.
> There is another project linux-from-scratch (www.lfs.org i think) that creates a
> statically linked set
> of packages required for build first and then builds the rest with that bin's. Such a
> set would require
> about 50MB and it is not difficult to make a few modified packages for that.
> This build-system could be placed on a gentoo-source cd together with a snapshot of the
> port-tree.
> Then you whould be able to boot with the source-cd and install a build.tbz2 instead of a
> sys.tbz2.
> Then you can chroot to that system and build everything from sources.
> Additionally this offers the possibility to build gentoo from within another
> linux-distro.
> 
> How do you guys think about that?

Sounds rather cool to me.


Bill

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Bill Anderson]

Bill Anderson wrote:
...yes responding to my own post ...


>> 
>> 
>> Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do 
>> the ports. :-)
>> 
> 
> 
> How about SSH access to an Alpha? Good enough? ;^)=
> 

Actually, upon sonideration, you could set up gcc as a cross-compiler to 
build the packages for an alpha/sparc/etc. The those of us with acess to 
them can try them out. My alpha is a bit short on RAM, and as such takes 
along time to build things :(.

I may try to set up gcc as a cross-compiler at work (mmmm 6-way XEON 700 
...) sometime next month, as I want to build my alpha system from the 
ground up (it is currently in an odd state ...).

Just random thoughts ...
Bill

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Achim Gottinger]

Bill Anderson wrote:

> Bill Anderson wrote:
> ...yes responding to my own post ...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do
> >> the ports. :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> > How about SSH access to an Alpha? Good enough? ;^)=
> >
>
> Actually, upon sonideration, you could set up gcc as a cross-compiler to
> build the packages for an alpha/sparc/etc.

I don't think you can build all packages with a cross compiler, but it
should
be possible to build the sys-build stuff with it.
Be warned building such a croo-compile enviroment is definately not an easy
thing.

~achim

> The those of us with acess to
> them can try them out. My alpha is a bit short on RAM, and as such takes
> along time to build things :(.
>
> I may try to set up gcc as a cross-compiler at work (mmmm 6-way XEON 700
> ...) sometime next month, as I want to build my alpha system from the
> ground up (it is currently in an odd state ...).
>
> Just random thoughts ...
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tom

[Achim Gottinger]

Bill Anderson wrote:

> Achim Gottinger wrote:
>
> > Thomas Flavel wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:29:01PM -0600, Bryce Porter wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tom:
> >>> "I'm just thinking along the lines of a minimum binary system where
> >>> absolutley needed, and compiling specifically everywhere else? I realise this would
> >>> be slow to install on slower systems, but, since we're all power users... ;)
> >>>
> >>> Seriously though, I do think this would be a nice feature, unless there's
> >>> some practicality reason I'm missing."
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> I think this is a great idea. I heard of a GNU/Linux distrobution that
> >>> when installed compiled all selected packages from source, making it the
> >>> most optimized you could get for your specific machine. I think it was
> >>> called Rock Linux or something.
> >>
> >> Not heard of it, but a quick search on google reveals the predicatable url:
> >> http://www.rocklinux.org, #rocklinux on irc.openprojects.net.
> >>
> >> Looks to be faily mature (at least they're past 1.0 ;), supports ppc and alpha
> >> as well as x86.
> >
> >
> > Please send me you ppc, alpha, i64, mips, sparc machines and I will do the ports. :-)
> >
>
> How about SSH access to an Alpha? Good enough? ;^)=

Is that an offer? Yes please.

>
>
> >
> >> From what I can see it has a binary cd version, with the option
> >> to compile from source (the same thing I was talking about, if I understand them
> >> correctly). It describes it's package management as closer to FreeBSD than debian.
> >> It looks to be quite similar to gentoo to me, although not quite as advanced.
> >
> >
> > I took a look at the site and think that we need something similar to cfengine
> > sometimes.
> >
> > I thougth about a minimum build system too, while I had to go back to i486 from i686.
> > There is another project linux-from-scratch (www.lfs.org i think) that creates a
> > statically linked set
> > of packages required for build first and then builds the rest with that bin's. Such a
> > set would require
> > about 50MB and it is not difficult to make a few modified packages for that.
> > This build-system could be placed on a gentoo-source cd together with a snapshot of the
> > port-tree.
> > Then you whould be able to boot with the source-cd and install a build.tbz2 instead of a
> > sys.tbz2.
> > Then you can chroot to that system and build everything from sources.
> > Additionally this offers the possibility to build gentoo from within another
> > linux-distro.
> >
> > How do you guys think about that?
>
> Sounds rather cool to me.

I have made all the required packages for sys-build and currently testing building the
sys-stuff on it.
I can upload a build.tbz2 tomorrow i think.

>
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev