[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: mkinitrd

[Ned Ludd]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:20, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking about initrd and I'd like to move down that path at some point for my own use.
> > Perhaps kernel+busybox for the initd then another partition for packages.
> > I'd like to go right from building packages on my own system to dishing (http:// || ftp:// ) them up from my $PKGDIR and installing right to the device when it's mounted +rw.
> > Problem I see however with the idea now is that the native portage format is a tad bloated (noman|nodoc|noinfo) all run at the installing phase vs the before packages phase which would force me to put a strip on the runtime device to keep packages small enough.
> > So my first goal is to get the dev-portage guys talking with me about redefining/extending the portage binary format a little.
> >
> > hrmm I guess I'll subscribe to gentoo-portage-dev-subscribe@g.o
> > and spark up a conversation.
>
> Are you thinking of adding subpackaging and/or foreign format support,
> like ipkg?

I have very simple ways todo ipkg format now that I can share with you if you want to deploy it now. 
But the topic of binary format handling is a hot topic (but nobody is really talking about it)
Guess I'll CC:  this to gentoo-portage-dev as my first post.

Right now portage only handles the .tbz2 format. This current format poses a few problems for it to really be useful for us on embedded devices. 
The tarballs contain man files/docs/info pages (lots of bloat to us).  None of the ELF's are stripped in the package.
Normally on our development systems we don't see these files as they don't get installed to the runtime system because FEATURES="noman noinfo nodoc" are set and this is handled in the dyn_install phase. So in order to get the desired behaviors inside we want it's almost like we need to do.
emerge pkg ; quickpkg pkg vs emerge -B package

Another problem that exists for us is that embedded systems usually never have python/perl/(your fav scripting lang here) installed. Without python installed I see no easy way to get at the additional package metadata thats joined into the .tbz2
This metadata is what holds the basic info like (what arch is this package for. USE/IUSE etc..) but even half of that is sealed up in a file called environment.bz2 so we have to decompress & extract the entire .tbz2 then parse (not source) the decompressed 'environment' file just to find out if a package is for our ARCH or not.
This is by no means very efficient.
Also the INSTALL_MASK feature needs work ( http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67190 )

Now to answer your orig question.
ipkg format. This is sorta of a yes & no thing.  In order for portage to better support more formats it should have abstraction layers between diff formats.
So first we must decide what formats we want to support. 
I'd think out of the gate we should support the most primitive of these pkg formats which is the classic .tar.gz (.tgz) format for the actual file system data.

Note to self: 
Look at source code for /usr/bin/tbz2tool
(busybox emerge binary applet?)

>
> Peter
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded) Developer