1 |
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 09:02, Jason Cooper wrote: |
2 |
> Natanael Copa (mlists@××××××.org) scribbled: |
3 |
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:36:18 -0400 |
4 |
> > Jason Cooper <gentoo@××××××××××.net> wrote: |
5 |
> > > I come from a commercial engineering/development house. We like |
6 |
> > > version control (Well, someone does, not sure who). We do one-off's, |
7 |
> > > applications, production items, mil-spec, LEO, and other stuff. (yeah, |
8 |
> > > I know, great sales pitch :) |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > We use our stuff non commercial. We don't intend to make money out of |
11 |
> > every version. We want to run a network and we dislike downtimes. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> From what I understand (I do R&D support right now), we don't make money |
14 |
> off of individual versions either. More support/services/products |
15 |
> oriented (govt contractor). I can fully agree with disliking downtimes. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > > I can see where one would want to be able to add packages on the |
18 |
> > > fly to say a wrt54g or an nslu2. Does it seem viable to do that from |
19 |
> > > a host system (faster compiles, more space), and generate a new images |
20 |
> > > each time? Or try to unpack the package on the fly on the target? |
21 |
> > > I'm not sure I see the viability of the latter wrt diskless systems. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > We are running harddisk-less bering routers (when we get all of them up |
24 |
> > and running there will probably be over 200 of them) Those are pulling |
25 |
> > runtime packages on the fly. Even if we do that, we need to reboot |
26 |
> > during upgrades. This year there have been a numbers of upgrades and it |
27 |
> > would be very nice to prevent the reboots. It is possible. |
28 |
|
29 |
indeed I don't think any of us want or are willing to reboot for simple |
30 |
upgrades. |
31 |
|
32 |
> |
33 |
> I think one of questions I have regards systems that have flash and ram |
34 |
> as their only means of storage. It's my understanding that the initrd |
35 |
> image must be written to the flash as a whole. Of course, any changes |
36 |
> to the running system would work, but would not be persistent. In this |
37 |
> case, a package system may not be desirable. Doesn't mean it shouldn't |
38 |
> be an option, just that there should be some means of upgrading the |
39 |
> image on the host and then flashing the target(s). Also, target package |
40 |
> management tools should be optional. |
41 |
|
42 |
squashfs + jffs2 make a nice combo which you can build fail safe systems |
43 |
with. One of the things that really impressed me about the OpenWrt |
44 |
project was the use of these file systems together. |
45 |
|
46 |
The merits of jffs2 on a compact flash are not clear however. |
47 |
The arguments seem to go both ways of (good vs bad) |
48 |
A gentoo user yoann.at.prelude-ids.dot.org (http://www.prelude-ids.org/) |
49 |
is doing a trial run of such a setup on compact flash. |
50 |
|
51 |
> |
52 |
> I think both approaches have merit. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Hypothetical build process: |
55 |
> |
56 |
> # emerge crossdev |
57 |
> |
58 |
> # crossdev --arch=powerpc ... |
59 |
|
60 |
Unfortunately the crossdev does not support uClibc yet. |
61 |
I've started on a patch for it, but somebody else will have to write one |
62 |
missing & needed function to make all the glue work. |
63 |
|
64 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/toolchain/crossdev-uclibc-20040802.diff |
65 |
The needed function is InstallUClibcCore() |
66 |
|
67 |
If anybody else has an interest is making crossdev uClibc aware here is |
68 |
what said function can be based on. |
69 |
http://uclibc.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/toolchain/gcc-3.3.x/make/uclibc.mk?rev=1.7&view=auto |
70 |
|
71 |
|
72 |
> |
73 |
> # export EMBEDDED="powerpc" ??? pulled out of thin air :) |
74 |
> |
75 |
> build the kernel... then |
76 |
> |
77 |
> # export E_ROOTFS=/opt/powerpc/rootfs ??? same here... |
78 |
> |
79 |
> # emerge system (this will go to $E_ROOTFS, for $EMBEDDED) |
80 |
> |
81 |
> emerge individual packages (ssh, nfs, ntpd, ipkg-tools, etc) |
82 |
> |
83 |
> add your app (if needed). |
84 |
> |
85 |
> edit rc script for app. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> configure everything. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> disconnect loopback file (rootfs), compress |
90 |
> |
91 |
> flash. |
92 |
> |
93 |
> |
94 |
> Do I have the right idea? It almost looks like a separate |
95 |
> 'portage/embedded/' tree may be necessary so package maintainers |
96 |
> aren't bothered with embedded issues. The embedded tree would |
97 |
> essentially be ebuild wrappers pulling extra patches, etc. Maybe |
98 |
> '.e_ebuild' or '.eebuild'? |
99 |
|
100 |
I really really don't want to go that route. oe exist for that. |
101 |
|
102 |
> |
103 |
> I'm sure a lot of this has already been covered... Unfortunately, I |
104 |
> can't find the archives to browse. :( |
105 |
|
106 |
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-embedded |
107 |
|
108 |
> |
109 |
> Cooper. |
110 |
> |
111 |
> -- |
112 |
> gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
113 |
-- |
114 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
115 |
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer |