Natanael Copa wrote: > 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. > Nice one! I really like portage-utils, they're good and fast.
> 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) > Yes but build time is not the same as runtime, especially for embedded systems. Installation doesn't have to be run by the target, which typically uses an image. >> 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. > That's entirely proper and reasonable to me, since it means the installed system can use whatever shell it likes. >> 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. > I don't understand then why you cannot build images using whatever tools you like and then simply run them using the targets. Apologies if I am missing something. >> > >> > 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! > Good luck with it! I recommend #gentoo-embedded on irc.freenode.org btw; ##electronics is good. Some of the bods in #gentoo-chat have experience with this kinda thing as well, and you'd be welcome in #friendly-coders. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
