[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GNU userland and binary package (WAS: RFC: sh versionator.eclass)

[Steve Long]

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@g.o mailing list