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
> 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
>> > 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.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list