On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:22:23AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:43:13PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > > Once sarge is released could we get the d-i team to start looking at > > incorporating Debian GNU/Hurd into the installer? > > I'm one of the d-i hackers and I've been working on this for the last > week or so already, although I had been hoping to announce that fact > only once I actually had something that worked. :-)
Awesome! > I've got untested patches to the build system, rootskel, and > base-installer; I've made libdebian-installer build, and uploaded > quite a few binaries from the dependency tree above that; I've made > some progress on netcfg; and I've got a hit-list of other Linux > assumptions I know about that we need to iron out. Once I have an > installer image that boots at all, I may be able to get one or two > other d-i developers interested in helping out. Rock! :) > If people want to help out before that, a debootstrap port which can > build a Hurd chroot from a Hurd system would help; basically, take the > modifications made to debootstrap's 'functions' file in crosshurd which > work around the lack of passive translator support in tar, port them > back up to current debootstrap, and make them be used only when > installing Debian architectures matching hurd-* so that the patch has a > chance of being incorporated into the Debian debootstrap package. We talked to aj about that a while ago; he seemed to be quite receptive to changes here. As I now got a network-enabled Hurd box, I looked at debootstrap again. I got the sid.buildd script mostly working now, but I got problems when the base packages are getting installed, I got a lot of 'Resource busy' errors I think. I will upload a package to ftp.gnuab.org for testing in due shot. > It would also be useful to have gnumach-udeb and hurd-udeb, please. They > should have pretty much the same contents as their .deb equivalents, > but: [...] I just uploaded a new hurd package with a hurd-udeb. Tell what is missing (a isofs.static probably for instance). > A native first-stage installer should not require the native-install > script; that should all be set up by debootstrap. I think it's OK to > concentrate entirely on native installation in d-i, and leave the > cross-installation to crosshurd et al; native installation is a better > long-term strategy anyway, since for example the installer won't offer > you the chance to set up network interfaces that are unsupported by the > Hurd. Ok. We thought about booting Linux d-i first and then using cross-debootstrap (aj split it up in two phases, only the second one needs to be executed natively, that code might be in his development version only) and later a ported/hacked base-config. However, if you think a native port is feasable, that's great to hear and we shall concentrate on that. > I don't think base-config should require any more than trivial porting > (e.g. disabling Linux-specific keyboard configuration, some > Linux-specific parts of hostname configuration, etc.). That won't really > be interesting until later on. Glad to hear that, I was a bit worried about base-config. But I got to admit I never took more than a cursory glance at either d-i or base-config. Thanks a lot Colin for your interest, Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
