Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> > These are the things I've thought about, and my opinions on them:
> >
> > * Include versions in the package name - not enough name space.
>
> Why not require VFAT support? I don't think it adds too much size to a
> compressed kernel.
Not a bad idea; however, there are a few things that come to mind:
* How do you create a VFAT diskette under Windows? Some may laugh; I
for one am not sure how....
* What about DOS diskettes? 1.44M preformatted diskettes?
* What of mkfs.msdos? Does it understand VFAT?
> We could also switch to minix formatted floppies, but
> the Windows folks would have a fit (and you thought 1680K floppies were hard
> to work with on 'Doze :)
Heh.
> Why not change the package format? It's possible to work with deb and rpm
> pacakges in shell-script using nothing more than dd, gzip, cat, and tar.
So I've heard; however, RPM files have not worked that way in my
experience - they require rpm2cpio to get anything decent out. Also,
last time I started untarring (more recent) DEB files there was always
an error or warning about a particular file - it may have been called
'-' or something.
> Using dd to cut the file up, you can have an initial text (or script)
> portion, followed by one or more tgz archives (this is pretty much how a deb
> package is made).
I'm not sure what you mean, but I have a strong aversion to any format
which can't be undone by the following GNU tar command:
tar xzvf <package>
I've had it up to here with all the different package formats - and
none of them satisfy the above requirement. I've HP-UX boxes here
(Software Depots), Unixware ("Packages"), Red Hat Linux (RPM), and
until recently Debian (DEB). Makes me want to do what I've heard
somewhere that a few others are doing: skip the packages altogether
and only use source *.tar.gz files from the original creator....
> I'd like to see pre/post install/remove script support,
var/lib/lrpkg/<pkg>.sh
...used this way:
pkg.sh postremove
pkg.sh preremove
pkg.sh postinstall
pkg.sh preinstall
> and I think we could
> have minimal dependancy checking (for library existance/version, kernel rev,
> etc) without too much bloat to the packaging scripts...
How to check for library version? You could use:
LIBC=$(ls -1 /lib/libc-*)
LIBC=${LIBC%%.so}
LIBC=${LIBC##*/libc-}
...but then you are relying on the name to be correct. Is it?
For the kernel, you'd probably be best with
KERNEL=$(uname -r)
KERNEL=${KERNEL%%-*}
...this assumes that uname -r works; does it?
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
