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 1IfI7X-0008Vy-LH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:39:48 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l99GTIFS018572; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:29:18 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l99GRMVI016113 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:27:23 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A58D64B39 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:27:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.924 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.403, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fYSJ6R4VjAwX for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF0F6558C for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IfHu5-0001be-Ag for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:25:53 +0000 Received: from 82.153.67.159 ([82.153.67.159]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:25:53 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.153.67.159 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:25:53 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:28:39 +0100 Message-ID: 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> <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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.67.159 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 304ace9e-33b7-488d-8bfe-dd28ca3d577b X-Archives-Hash: 43d6e4fc5b58dfbc469d9628081383c0 Natanael Copa wrote: > 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. > Nice one! I really like portage-utils, they're good and fast. > 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) > Yes but build time is not the same as runtime, especially for embedded systems. Installation doesn't have to be run by the target, which typically uses an image. >> 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. > That's entirely proper and reasonable to me, since it means the installed system can use whatever shell it likes. >> 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. > I don't understand then why you cannot build images using whatever tools you like and then simply run them using the targets. Apologies if I am missing something. >> > >> > 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! > Good luck with it! I recommend #gentoo-embedded on irc.freenode.org btw; ##electronics is good. Some of the bods in #gentoo-chat have experience with this kinda thing as well, and you'd be welcome in #friendly-coders. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list