> > If so, I
> > think a separate tree for packages is in order. I also, like David's
diff
> > idea for them.
>
> This doesn't necessarily help in this case, though: the distributions
> now present are starting to show direct incompatabilities:
>
> * glibc 2.0.7 vs. glibc 2.1.3 vs. glibc 2.2 (future)
> * Linux 2.0 vs Linux 2.2 vs Linux 2.4
>
> What the diff file does is to allow a user to get an unmodified source
> tar-ball, and apply the patch to it. It also means that it puts into
> one place all the work we do to get the source compiled, and it is
> saved and reproduceable. Some of the reasons I wanted to use diffs
> are: a) creates a package DURING THE MAKE process....; b) be able to
> remove the source directory tree in favor of the source file and a
> diff file. This models after the Debian and Red Hat way of doing
> things; Debian puts out the source tarball and the diff next to each
> other in their source directory; Red Hat puts everything together
> (source tarball, patches, etc) together into a source RPM.
> I'm still contemplating how to create packages that work under glibc
> 2.1.3 and MARK themselves as such. Perhaps this is a problem which
> should be discussed..................
> Red Hat and Mandrake and others put things like versions, CPU, release
> version, into their names. With the 8.3 limitation imposed by LRP,
> the package names for us don't have that kind of room.
> 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. 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 :)
> * Include a file (flag) such as: /var/lib/lrpkg/<pkg>.glibc-2.1
> * Add "(2.1)" to the version, in the <pkg>.version file, like so:
> 3.61(2.1)-1
> * Use a different extension than ".lrp" - the new Oxygen, using glibc
> 2.1, is not limited to using *.lrp - but this is not true of other
> distributions....
>
> I tend to lean towards the latter two, at least for glibc 2.1
> binaries. The reasons are:
>
> * Someone has to CHANGE the extension to use them - this right away
> tells them something is different.
> * When listing versions, the "(2.1)" stands out more than the
> others...
> * Of course, then there is always the SegFault :O
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.
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'd like to see pre/post install/remove script support, and I think we could
have minimal dependancy checking (for library existance/version, kernel rev,
etc) without too much bloat to the packaging scripts...
Charles Steinkuehler
http://lrp.steinkuehler.net
http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror)
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
