Gentoo Archives: gnap-dev

From: "josé Alberto Suárez López" <bass@g.o>
To: gnap-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gnap-dev] [RFC] Summer of Code Proposal: GNAP Love
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:19:13
Message-Id: 1206537543.15053.9.camel@supercoco
In Reply to: [gnap-dev] [RFC] Summer of Code Proposal: GNAP Love by Philipp Riegger
1 hi :)
2
3 as we talked before...
4
5 El mié, 26-03-2008 a las 13:57 +0100, Philipp Riegger escribió:
6 > Good morning,
7 >
8 > I have some ideas for Summer of Code which i'd like to discuss with you.
9
10 new ideas ever welcome
11
12 > I'm mostly interested in making GNAP usable and my proposal includes
13 > lots of tasks in GNAP and catalyst, of which i'd like to finish as many
14 > as possible and do some research on the rest.
15 >
16 > catalyst tasks:
17 >
18 > • Squashfs snapshot support
19 > I don't like it, that it takes so much time to unpack a new snapshot and
20 > it takes so much disk space to store it. Plan is: distribute tree
21 > snapshots as squashfs images, mount them directly into the workdir,
22 > use /mnt/distfiles and /mnt/packages instead of snapshot subdirectories.
23
24 i like this can be usefull, the problem is how mcuh espace you need to
25 redistribute all sources we need (not only gnap-core srcs, i mean
26 extensions srcs too)
27
28 > • (Squashfs seedstage support)
29 > Maybe the same is possible for stages? A future plan for this could be
30 > to mount the squashfs image directly and use unionfs for the real work,
31 > but i have no idea how deleting files in such a setup works. Research is
32 > necessary here.
33
34 i dont understand it well
35
36 > • uclibc-cross-compiling support
37 > Cross compiling is hard, but it should be possible to build arch-uclibc
38 > from arch. Research, what needs to be done combined with the
39 > implementation, if possible. This would also make GNAP more flexible.
40
41 this will be one of the biggest features so as you know is hard.
42
43 > • Documentation
44 > In an email from some days ago i read, that documentation is planed for
45 > after the release. I could support this and proofread it, since i need
46 > the knowledge anyway.
47
48 you mean gnap doc or catalyst doc?
49
50 > • (Code cleanups)
51 > I write this everywhere, but since i need a basic understanding, i have
52 > to read (parts of) the source and maybe i find something worth
53 > improving.
54
55 ever welcome :)
56
57 > • Cross compiling research
58 > This is the continuation of the uclibc stuff with some plans on what
59 > could be done how.
60 >
61 > • Non-root builds research
62 > Wouldn't it be nice if being root was not necessary for using catalyst?
63 > I would like to look into the possibilities there and what is needed to
64 > make it reality.
65
66 i think that is hard, you dont need root only for catalyst, other GNAP
67 operations need to be root.
68
69 > GNAP tasks:
70 >
71 > • Code/Tree hosting, VCS
72 > I've done some work last year and that does only exist as some patches,
73 > since there is no central repository for GNAP development. First i'd
74 > like to establish one and move all existing resources there.
75
76 yes, what about your google-code testing?
77
78 > • GNAP 2.1
79 > There are some known and easy to fix bugs in GNAP 2.0. There have also
80 > been some code cleanups. The last thing is, that the current GNAP is not
81 > really usable, since the tree snapshot is so old, that most of the
82 > distfiles are not fetchable from mirrors or other places. So i'd like to
83 > make a new release, be it in the tree or in an overlay.
84
85 you are right, but first we need and updated tree
86
87 > • Reimplementation in python research
88 > Catalyst is written in python, maybe we could make better use of it if
89 > we reimplemented some parts of GNAP in python? This is just a research
90 > item, i'd like to look into it and form some statement about it. I'll
91 > probably not do it.
92
93 i prefer to keep bash
94
95 > • uclibc-cross-compiling support
96 > This depends on catalyst.
97 >
98 > • (Cross-compiling support)
99 > My last years project. My thoughts/plans about that should be discussed
100 > with the community and put on the GNAP development website.
101 >
102 > • GNAP releases, long term support
103 > This is just an idea i have. Think of something like this: With each
104 > gentoo release, we take the release snapshot, form our reduced GNAP
105 > snapshot (only supported profiles, unsupported USE flags masked,
106 > unneeded ebuilds (X, desktop stuff) not in the tree) and support it for
107 > some time security wise (like the releng team does during release). This
108 > is more of a research topic, with informing what needs to be done,
109 > writing of scripts, maybe doing a proof of concept (maintaining a
110 > snapshot for some weeks to see how it works).
111
112
113 --
114 gnap-dev@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gnap-dev] [RFC] Summer of Code Proposal: GNAP Love Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de>