On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 20:25 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Natanael Copa wrote:
> If you're that motivated why not just start hacking on binary support in > portage/pkgcore/paludis? There's always open bugs. I think I did contribute with some patches for qmerge in portage-utils. Unfortunally, its pretty difficult to make a lightweight C (language) only binary installer without having at least the eclasses and GNU tools. It kind of defeat the idea of having a lightweight binary only runtime environment. (lightweight means busybox - which give you most of the basic GNU tools, linux-utils, wget, shell, http server and much more for the size of bash only) > >> Your own binary only package manager would still need to provide > >> Option #2; ie you need to have GNU tools installed to process the > >> binary packages. pkg_* functions could still have GNU stuff in them > >> and those still get run during a binary package install. > > > > If we would like to be able to do binary installs without the GNU tools, > > what alternatives do we have? > > > <snip stuff that all takes a lot of effort for zero end-user gain> > > > Any other alternatives? > > > > Comments? > > > I'd just specify BASH (as I don't see the point in making the distinction as > it only applies to build machines) and coreutils/findutils etc. To properly install a prebuilt binary packages you need the pkg_* funcs in the ebuild. > Asking everyone to switch coding style for certain functions, just to > support the stuff that Gentoo was designed to do from the beginning, seems > counter-productive. We already do different for init.d scripts (which is great!) , but sure, I get the point. > For every market except embedded, which we've discussed > already, BASH is not a major issue: nor are the other tools mentioned. I happen to do embedded. > > > > Alternative C is what I do today. > > > Sounds rough :) Thats why I'm interested in alternatives. > (I really would recommend #pkgcore as well as there is several years of work > to do with binpkgs in that.) So far no packagemanager using the portage stuff (eclasses) are not even close to compete in size for binary only installs. Closest is portage-utils's qmerge but it would need atleast the eclasses and bash which would atleast double the size in comparison what I do today. Looks like i will need to continue do my own stuff. Thanks for you time! > Standardising on a certain subset of base GNU tools seems like a good idea > to me too. -nc -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
