On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, George Metz wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
>
> > 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....
>
> Beats me. I think it's a simple matter of formatting under Windows. I'll
> give it a shot tonight.
vfat is backward-compatible. Microsoft used reserved features in the FAT
format to implement its features, and included consistency checks with
fallback to 8.3 behavior in case an older MSDOS system modifies the FAT
entries.
Every floppy you use in Windows is treated as vfat.
>
> > * What about DOS diskettes? 1.44M preformatted diskettes?
>
> Require a reformat assuming that they aren't already VFAT formatted. Even
> for the average Windows user formatting a disk isn't difficult.
What about them? They are vfat.
> > * What of mkfs.msdos? Does it understand VFAT?
>
> Yep. 'mkdosfs -F 32 /dev/fd0[uXXXX]' does the trick.
vfat != fat32
The vfat module happens to support both the long filenames and large disk
support.
>
> > > 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.
>
> I'm also against moving away from text-and-script-controlled tarballs.
> About the only thing that might compel me to want to do so is the ability
> to add apt-get for LRP, with a package repository on Sourceforge to allow
> people to auto-update - and even then, I might need some arm-twisting.
> "Keep It Simple, 'cause they're Stupid" my History teacher always used to
> say.
>
> > > 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?
The loader has to know the name. "ldd" gets the loader to divulge the
name(s) expected by a binary on a full distro. Might be better to steal
this technique in the package loader than add a new file to the lrp
format, though that doesn't help those with the old lrpkg figure out
their problems.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live...
DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go...
Work:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with
/Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
