> >It sounds almost like you want a "minimal set" of enumerated binaries and > >functions, and then Oxygen would add set X and Dachstein would add set Y. > > Nope. No. Nein. Niet. Non. :-) > > There is NO baseline. > > There is one standard: the formation of a package. > > The final decision on a configuration always rest with the user and she > expects the tools to do her job.
There actually *IS* a baseline implicit in the above. *SOMETHING* has to get linux booted, create/mount a root filesystem, and load the proverbial "package". This implies some sort of boot-strapping code, as well as some sort of "package" format. Allow me to wander off on a slight philosophical tangent... I think the core question is what makes LEAF LEAF? What are the consistent features between all the distributions we think of as being part of the LEAF family? There are *LOTS* of tiny linux distributions, and a rapidly growing number of embedded linux distributions...what makes LEAF different from any of these? Many things come to mind, but I think the core feature is the dynamic generation of a linux run-time environment on boot. The embedded guys build a complete environment on their high-powered development machine, then burn a static filesystem image into their ROM, flash, or whatever storage media they're using, and that's pretty much the end of it. You may not even be able to write to a file, much less be able to install a package for new functionality. The tiny linux distribution folks are also substantially different from LEAF. Virtually all of these distributions are based on running from a hard-disk, and are essentially slimmed down versions of various full releases. Typically, if you don't have a hard-drive (or a good aproximation of one), you can't effictively run one of these distributions. LEAF, LRP, and a few other micro-distributions are designed to run without a hard-disk, yet be extensible via a packaging system. IMHO, this is the single most unique and identifying feature of LEAF's many distributions, and what sets us apart from the broader linux community in general. Additional characteristics like the linuxrc script, and the 2.2 series kernel patches, exist due to the requirements of having a packaging system and dynamically constructing the run-time environment at boot. We've inherited a set of packaging and boot-strap conventions from LRP. It's already been shown that the boot-strap conventions are not required to make a LEAF system...this is evidence that while essential to a system actually working, the specific boot methodology is *NOT* a critically core part of LEAF. So...who wants to start playing with the packaging system and re-defining LEAF? Once the packaging system is smart enough to know which files are configuration files (and maybe even able to tell which files have changed), it becomes much easier to support a variety of potentially complex issues, allowing users, developers, or the in-between "tinkerers" to setup backups and the loading of configuration data the way they want. Lots of nifty ideas about this, but not enough time to jot everything down, and I don't want David getting mad at me again ;-) Seriously, I hope to have some time next week to begin to get some of the ideas bouncing around in my head out into the open, where they can grow and develop from everyone's input (or maybe they'll shrink back and be killed by the light). Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
