| 1 |
On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > > > 4. db4 could also get a c++ disable option (for uclibc) |
| 4 |
> Do we even need berkdb? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
haven't tested it w/o ( I know perl uses it, but if we replace perl w/ |
| 7 |
mini/micro-perl, it won't be needed probably) |
| 8 |
when I saw the reactions to my virtual/packages, |
| 9 |
I decided to stay for the time being w/ almost the same stuff as a base |
| 10 |
gentoo system, the only removals are |
| 11 |
groff/man/man-pages/pam/pam-login/gettext and some strip down addons. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > than we would need subpackaging, to separate out c++ and libstdc++ from |
| 14 |
> > the main gcc package |
| 15 |
> Speaking of sub packaging have you had a chance to muck with the |
| 16 |
> multipackage FEATURE I posted a week or so ago? I've talked the idea of |
| 17 |
> multi packaging over with the portage team. They don't like it. They |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
no, not yet |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> offered No ideas or solutions either. So I'm thinking for the actually |
| 22 |
> embedded devices themselves we can/should abopt the ipkg format. ipkg is |
| 23 |
> a pretty common packaging format for embedded devices, and it would |
| 24 |
> probably be in our best interests to adopt an existing standard vs |
| 25 |
> making a new one. One advantage of the ipkg is you can actually use it |
| 26 |
> from your embedded devices. ie pkg management on a 2 meg flash is 100% |
| 27 |
> doable with it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
ipkg is ok for me too, I haven't looked deeply into it, but offers what we |
| 30 |
need., splitting into libs/binaries/devel/static/man/doc/info and so on. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Do you want to make it run by portage (somehow replacing tbz2tool)? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Peter |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
Archives