On Monday 20 January 2003 09:49 am, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > I pretty much agree with everything above. I concur that it would be > better to try to add the LEAF specific requirements for creating backups > to something like ipkg, rather than try to build dependency checking and > other fancy features into the existing backup scripts. > > I was mainly concerned with trying to use something like ipkg as-is. > Even if the rpm or deb tools could be added to LEAF with no space > issues, the inability to store configured changes from the ramdisk image > to a non-volitle media would preclude their use.
Absolutely, ipkg is not/will not be a drag-n-drop replacement for the existing package system. I was thinking more along the lines of a starting point for a new package manipulation system. Use of ipkg would also require re-packaging to fit the ipkg system....any use of this will require quite a bit of time and work. -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
