1 |
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 07:05 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote: |
2 |
> I saw a post (I think it was this list, and the following was from |
3 |
> memory) a month or two back of someone who did just this. They |
4 |
> installed with a past date, then ran the system for a week or so and |
5 |
> exercised it extensively. They then did the remove everything based on |
6 |
> atime that hadnt been touched. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> The result was very successful, but they did come across the odd file |
9 |
> they had to put back. Testing after the initial delete was considerable. |
10 |
|
11 |
yeah, that was probably me (earlier on in the year at least). For the |
12 |
initial install, I made the date somewhere around the epoch, or somehow |
13 |
I altered every file on the filesystem to be this date (can't remember). |
14 |
Then I fixed the date and booted the system. I posted quite a few |
15 |
questions and findings on the mailing list and ended up with that |
16 |
option. It works quite well in theory, however here are some notes to |
17 |
help you: |
18 |
|
19 |
1. symlinks aren't (or at least weren't in my case) picked up by the |
20 |
process, probably because when you access a symlink, only the date of |
21 |
the target appears to be altered. I had to manually copy many symlinks |
22 |
(which were mostly like /lib/libgcc_s.so -> libgcc_s.so.1) to even get |
23 |
the system to boot. And the error messages threw me way off. |
24 |
|
25 |
2. The more you want the system to do, the harder it will be. We didn't |
26 |
want a whole host of features (no X), in fact only really ssh, ftpd, |
27 |
iptables, and limited others. |
28 |
|
29 |
3. don't delete everything you don't need, because you _will_ make a |
30 |
mistake. In fact, we redid the entire process a few times from scratch, |
31 |
to refine it more. To make it easier, make two partitions, or if your |
32 |
final copy will only have one disk and one partition, put in a spare |
33 |
disk just for the testing phase. Make an exact copy on both before you |
34 |
start deleting. Then you can keep going back to the full installation |
35 |
to get files you missed. In fact, we made the machine dual boot to both |
36 |
disks, just in case we wanted to test the full install versus our |
37 |
minimal install. |
38 |
|
39 |
4. write down the commands that you use to find and copy the files you |
40 |
want, that way the second and third and subsequent times you do it, you |
41 |
don't have to remember. |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
> >From my point of view, such a "stripped system" would always be |
45 |
> classified as unstable as you never know when it will ask for a file you |
46 |
> removed as it is just too complex to check every circumstance. |
47 |
|
48 |
I did much of the initial work to prove the concept and handed it over |
49 |
to someone else to turn into a reproducible system. As far as I know, |
50 |
we've had 3 or 4 running continuously for quite a few months now. |
51 |
|
52 |
Our particular requirement was to make a running system for a 64 Mb |
53 |
sandisk, with enough space left over for about 10-12 Mb of our own |
54 |
software. This is an embedded control system (no X), and we wanted a |
55 |
very similar installation on our HMI (X, gnome, and other such boggy |
56 |
apps :) running the same kernel so we could copy programs between them |
57 |
if need be. (The HMI runs a complete installation.) |
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
If you're planning on doing it in a short amount of time, think again! |
61 |
It won't be trivial, but the concept is at least possible. |
62 |
|
63 |
HTH, |
64 |
-- |
65 |
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@××××××××××××.au> |
66 |
|
67 |
-- |
68 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |