David Douthitt wrote:
> Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>
>> David Douthitt wrote:
>
>>> BB has as one requirement that it only use glibc as I remember.
>>
>> debian:~/lrp-2.9.8/build/busybox-0.50# grep --context=3 uClib *
>> README-
>> README-Supported libcs:
>> README-
>> README: glibc-2.0.x, glibc-
Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>
> David Douthitt wrote:
> > BB has as one requirement that it only use glibc as I remember.
> debian:~/lrp-2.9.8/build/busybox-0.50# grep --context=3 uClib *
> README-
> README-Supported libcs:
> README-
> README: glibc-2.0.x, glibc-2.1.x, Linux-libc5, uClibc. People
David Douthitt wrote:
> George Metz wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, Busybox isn't that huge... 95k in 2.9.8.
>
>
> 156k in Oxygen.
>
>> It's possible
>> that we can get the whole shebang in there if BB only needs one or two of
>> the libs.
>
>
> BB has as one requirement that it only use
Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>
> George Metz wrote:
> > Thought here is to get a bootstrap initrd archive up and running first,
> > then use what it contains to load System packages, then addon packages,
> > from a significantly larger medium than a floppy disk. In this case, if
> > we're using bzip2,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then you need to re-read the man page for tar. That would be
> horrendous default behavior in *nix. This isn't DOS... where the user ==
> the sysadmin :)
In the book "UNIX System Administration", by David Fiedler and Bruce
Hunter, it says this:
tar's syntax is simpl
George Metz wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Ewald Wasscher wrote:
> > Tweaking linuxrc so that
> > it will work with busybox's sed applet instead of GNU sed could save a
> > few bytes too.
> As for Sed, well, sed is an uncompressed 17k, so I don't know that the
> savings would be worth making li
George Metz wrote:
> On the other hand, Busybox isn't that huge... 95k in 2.9.8.
156k in Oxygen.
> It's possible
> that we can get the whole shebang in there if BB only needs one or two of
> the libs.
BB has as one requirement that it only use glibc as I remember.
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> This is pretty much the direction I plan to go to make my CD/HDD/floppy-boot
> stuff more flexible (it's nice not to have multiple versions of everything
> to maintain!). Also, a very thin 'bootstrap' initrd that 99% of the users
> would never ha
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Ewald Wasscher wrote:
> > Please, someone who's monkeyed with the default 2.9.8 Linuxrc script,
> > doublecheck me on that.
>
> I wouldn't swear on it, but I think this is accurate.
Close enough for government work.
> This could be a nice way of loading the bulk of leaf from
Charles Steinkuehler, 2001-04-07 09:10 -0500
>Check out my latest hard-disk HOWTO. In the section on running 2.9.8 off
>a hard-disk, I have an updated linuxrc that loads modules at boot-time
>(useful for gaining access to CD-ROMs or HDD's without a kernel re-
>compile). Also, I re-worked the ord
> > No. A new patch would be required, or the root archive would
> > need to be in gzip instead of bzip2 format; but much/most of
> > the root stuff might be able to be moved into a root2 package
> > that is bzipped...
>
> (Clears throat, steps forward)
>
> ACTUALLY, David and I had a long discuss
George Metz wrote:
>
> This is based on the boot sequence in initrd archive, to the point of
> loading packages, as follows:
>
> 1. Creates links to busybox for ln, cat, and mkdir.
> 2. Creates the base directory structure with the above.
> 3. Creates busybox and POSIXness links.
> 4. Makes t
David Douthitt wrote:
>
> bzip2 is supposed to be pretty good; why not use root.tgz and all the
> rest are *.bgz or whatever the standard is but then, there
> probably isn't any. The zip code for root.tgz is contained within the
> kernel, so you could actually remove gzip and use bzip2. Th
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No. A new patch would be required, or the root archive would
> need to be in gzip instead of bzip2 format; but much/most of
> the root stuff might be able to be moved into a root2 package
> that is bzipped...
(Clears throat, steps forward)
ACTUALLY,
I expand the lrp's as a regular user to avoid that.
--
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: It's what's for dinner!
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Scott C. Best wrote:
>
> Actually I like .lrp as well, though my complaint
> with it is different. I find it difficult to extract files
> from a .lrp without poten
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> I'm surprised no one is understanding this complaint; I think I
> understand it perfectly. It has occurred to me also.
Some good points are made below, but the temporary copy still seems
unnecessary.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Apr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 06:29:16AM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > My understanding is that tar takes your pathname as specified when you
> > pack. For example,
> >
> > tar cvf file.tar .
> > ...creates files with names like "./myfile1" "./myfile2" etc.
> >
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:40:43PM +0200, Ewald Wasscher scribbled:
> > That's a good point. I quite often open on windows machines using
> > winzip, and having to rename the file to package.tgz is a bit inconvenient.
>
> Well, either go into winzip and go file->ope
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:19:01PM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > It is COMMON and well-understood and used by EVERYONE. Every serious
> > unpacker for the Windows/DOS/BeOS/UNIX. platform will understand a
> > *.tgz file...
>
> Agreed. That's the advantag
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:47:48PM +0200, Ewald Wasscher scribbled:
> > Too many package formats use .tgz as their name.
> >
> > What if we started using bzip2 for our packages and called
> > them .tbz? Nobody uses .tbz for _anything_ not even bzip2'd
> > tar files.
>
> Would be nice (see my las
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:40:43PM +0200, Ewald Wasscher scribbled:
> > I seem to be somewhat alone in that I *LIKE* the *.lrp packaging;
> Personally I like the simpicity.
Me, I like the simplicity more than the simpicity. ;)
> That's a good point. I quite often open on windows machines using
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 06:29:16AM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> My understanding is that tar takes your pathname as specified when you
> pack. For example,
>
> tar cvf file.tar .
> ...creates files with names like "./myfile1" "./myfile2" etc.
>
> tar cvf file.tar *
> ...creates files with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:51:59PM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
>
>> I seem to be somewhat alone in that I *LIKE* the *.lrp packaging;
>> there is only one change I would make: rename the files from *.lrp to
>> *.tgz. This adds the ability to know what the file fo
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:19:01PM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > Too many package formats use .tgz as their name.
>
> No, there is only one: a file that has been created by tar and
> compressed by gzip. Everything else is a file.
Slackware, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD all distribute their packa
David Douthitt wrote:
> I seem to be somewhat alone in that I *LIKE* the *.lrp packaging;
Personally I like the simpicity.
> there is only one change I would make: rename the files from *.lrp to
> *.tgz. This adds the ability to know what the file format is, and
> allows Windows hosts to decip
Jeff:
heya...
> > Jeff:
> > Sorry you don't agree.
>
> Well, I am too. I feel like one of us is operating under some
> misconceptions about how lrpkg or tar works. By continuing this
> thread, I hope to grok your concern, or perhaps you will find your
> concerns were not justified.
> Actually I like .lrp as well, though my complaint
> with it is different. I find it difficult to extract files
> from a .lrp without potentially overwriting important system
> binaries on the development box.
> What'd be *much* nicer is if package.lrp expanded
> to /tmp/package, and then /tmp/pa
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, S.C.Best wrote:
> Jeff:
> Sorry you don't agree. What I mean to say was, suppose
> my currently running system has a working /etc/dnscache (for
> example). I'd be ill advised to extract a new dnscache.lrp without
> carefully controlling where it untar's. The defaults wou
I'm surprised no one is understanding this complaint; I think I
understand it perfectly. It has occurred to me also.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, S.C.Best wrote:
> > I'd be ill advised to extract a new dnscache.lrp without
> > carefully controlling where it untar's. The def
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Scott C. Best wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually I like .lrp as well, though my complaint
> > with it is different. I find it difficult to extract files
> > from a .lrp without potentially overwriting important system
> > binaries on the development
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, S.C.Best wrote:
> Jeff:
> Sorry you don't agree.
Well, I am too. I feel like one of us is operating under some
misconceptions about how lrpkg or tar works. By continuing this thread, I
hope to grok your concern, or perhaps you will find your concerns were not
justifie
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Scott C. Best wrote:
>
> Actually I like .lrp as well, though my complaint
> with it is different. I find it difficult to extract files
> from a .lrp without potentially overwriting important system
> binaries on the development box.
Erm...
I've never had a problem wit
Jeff:
Sorry you don't agree. What I mean to say was, suppose
my currently running system has a working /etc/dnscache (for
example). I'd be ill advised to extract a new dnscache.lrp without
carefully controlling where it untar's. The defaults would overwrite
what's my system was using.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Scott C. Best wrote:
>
> Actually I like .lrp as well, though my complaint
> with it is different. I find it difficult to extract files
> from a .lrp without potentially overwriting important system
> binaries on the development box.
I don't grok this. I have never ha
David Douthitt, 2001-04-05 18:19 -0500
>UNIX originally did EVERYTHING in files why not use [files] in
>our packaging?
>
>So... NO special format, NO special databases, NO special "support"
>files needed, NO anything - just tar, gzip, and files.
David,
This package FAQs from the new Midori L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:51:59PM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > I seem to be somewhat alone in that I *LIKE* the *.lrp packaging;
> > there is only one change I would make: rename the files from *.lrp to
> > *.tgz. This adds the ability to know what the file
Actually I like .lrp as well, though my complaint
with it is different. I find it difficult to extract files
from a .lrp without potentially overwriting important system
binaries on the development box.
What'd be *much* nicer is if package.lrp expanded
to /tmp/package, and then /t
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:51:59PM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> I seem to be somewhat alone in that I *LIKE* the *.lrp packaging;
> there is only one change I would make: rename the files from *.lrp to
> *.tgz. This adds the ability to know what the file format is, and
> allows Windows host
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Paul Batozech wrote:
> Eric Wolzak wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> > > this sounds interesting. Is the new system going to be 2.4 based? I ask
> > > because 2.4 is supposed to have stateful inspection, which makes firewall
> > > a much more applicable term.
> > i would like that also v
Eric Wolzak wrote:
>
> Hello
> > this sounds interesting. Is the new system going to be 2.4 based? I ask
> > because 2.4 is supposed to have stateful inspection, which makes firewall
> > a much more applicable term.
> i would like that also very much
> >
> > I'd be interested in helping out on a
Hello
> this sounds interesting. Is the new system going to be 2.4 based? I ask
> because 2.4 is supposed to have stateful inspection, which makes firewall
> a much more applicable term.
i would like that also very much
>
> I'd be interested in helping out on a firewall script system, but I don't
this sounds interesting. Is the new system going to be 2.4 based? I ask
because 2.4 is supposed to have stateful inspection, which makes firewall
a much more applicable term.
I'd be interested in helping out on a firewall script system, but I don't
have a great deal of time. Have you checked out
42 matches
Mail list logo
