On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, David Douthitt wrote:

<Snip!>

>   * Tried to remove EVERYTHING and ANYTHING located
>     in root.lrp that required backups: thus, root.lrp
>     should be completely static for almost all purposes.
>     (if it isn't, I'm not done :)

As a note, on the lazy side of things - since I am, first and foremost, a
lazy SOB <g> - this means that any update to Oxygen's root.lrp can be
simply plugged in to any Oxygen-derived images and BANG, Derivative
updated. That's awfully appealing to me. =)
 
> >         c) a local harddisk is assumed, which the /var directory will be
> >         written to.
> >                 c1) persistence of /var means lrpkg/ needs to move
> >                 elsewhere.
> 
> Why?

I also thought of this after my own reply. You can just set up the system
to mount /dev/xda* as /var/log. It would significantly reduce any issues
with alternate images not being compatible.
 
> > 2-b) If I'm assuming a CD-ROM and a box with lots of RAM, why not get
> > away from the glibc issue and use a newer Linux as my base? Pros and
> > cons?
> 
> I've been thinking about the same for my CDROM off and on.  Here are
> some of my ramblings:
> 
> * Using a new glibc means you are no longer able to use a floppy
> (probably).

Why? A stripped glibc 2.1.x setup only takes about a hundred to two
hundred kbytes more of disk space; if the only things on the disk are the
root and etc LRPs, then there should be tons of space for it.

> * using a more up-to-date glibc - this is something to seriously
> consider, methinks.

Aye.

> * using Linux 2.4 - this may be worth avoiding for production systems
> right now... but keep watching.

Hopefully, the way Linus is going about things for 2.4.x, the kernel will
be a lot stabler a lot sooner. I can honestly say that I haven't seen any
issues running as a workstation. I agree that servers are a bit touchy
ground, but it seems to be coming along better than 2.2.x did.
 
--
George Metz
Commercial Routing Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"We know what deterrence was with 'mutually assured destruction' during
the Cold War. But what is deterrence in information warfare?" -- Brigadier
General Douglas Richardson, USAF, Commander - Space Warfare Center


_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel

Reply via email to