| 1 |
On 22 May 2004, at 02:01, John Davis wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Rac just submitted some packages to me for a "stage4" - which is a |
| 4 |
> stage3 w/ more packages. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Perhaps we could extend this into the gentoopix |
| 7 |
> idea and use stage4s to build our livecds? (btw, what does gentoopix |
| 8 |
> stand for?). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I think we could implement this fairly easily, let me know what you are |
| 11 |
> thinking. We might want to keep our stages and minimal livecds around |
| 12 |
> to |
| 13 |
> save users from having to download big CDs if they want to install |
| 14 |
> Gentoo (for our low bandwidth folks). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
We already have small components 'ebuilds' representing knowledge to |
| 17 |
build packages. We also have packages, the result of applying the |
| 18 |
knowledge. Sometimes we make a snapshot of our knowledge and build a |
| 19 |
lot of packages from ebuilds in this snapshot, we call the collection |
| 20 |
of packages a 'reference platform'. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The GRP set of packages is a superset of the stage 3 set of packages, |
| 23 |
The stage3 set of packages is a superset of the stage2 set of packages, |
| 24 |
The stage2 set of packages is a superset of the stage1 set of packages. |
| 25 |
... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
A stage is a huge tarball of unpacked packages. Imho that's not ok: In |
| 28 |
the past users suggested switching to 'diff stages': A stage3 tarball |
| 29 |
would then only include the packages not in the stage2 tarball and not |
| 30 |
in the stage1. Stage2 only includes what is not in stage1. I'm a bit |
| 31 |
more ambitious and think tarballs of packages aren't needed because we |
| 32 |
already provide packages: either installed (and in use on the livecd |
| 33 |
the user is booting with) or packed (as small tarballs, which can be |
| 34 |
used for installation). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
A package can be created from a set of packages (portage can do that), |
| 37 |
so given a livecd, portage can come up with a set of packages. |
| 38 |
Instead of having lots of huge tarballs, or switch to complicated 'diff |
| 39 |
stages', we can just declare what packages a stage3 consists of. The |
| 40 |
(declarative) statement: |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
"stage foobar consists of package foo and package bar" |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
is all that is needed for portage to create a tarball consisting of the |
| 45 |
foo and bar packages. How portage computes the foo and bar package |
| 46 |
(fetch from a repository, derive from an installed system, use ebuild |
| 47 |
knowledge to compile from source, ... ) is portages business (a |
| 48 |
different issue). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
The advantage is this: |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
"stage foobarwithx consists of package foo and package bar and package |
| 53 |
x" |
| 54 |
"stage foobar consists of package foo and package bar" |
| 55 |
"stage foo consists of package foo" |
| 56 |
"stage foowithx consists of package foo and package x" |
| 57 |
"stage bar consist of package bar" |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Assume every package (foo, bar or x) is 100M in size (compressed). |
| 60 |
Realizing the above with stage tarballs would take 900M, where just |
| 61 |
having the packages and the declarative representation of the stages |
| 62 |
would be only 300M in size. In our current system adding a new stage4 |
| 63 |
tarball is impossible, storage wise. Adding a stage4,5,6,7,8,9,10... |
| 64 |
"virtual" representation is absolutely possible. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Best regards, |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Pieter Van den Abeele |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
> Cheers, |
| 75 |
> -- |
| 76 |
> John Davis |
| 77 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 78 |
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen> |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
> ---- |
| 81 |
> GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc> |
| 82 |
> Fingerprint: 2364 71BD 4BC2 705D F338 FF70 6650 1235 1946 2D47 |
| 83 |
> |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
-- |
| 87 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives