On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:05:41AM +0200, Thomas Penteker wrote: > * Juergen Daubert ([email protected]) wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:43:15AM +0200, Thomas Penteker wrote: > > (...) > > First thanks for you work, but again you are very late with it, > > because we released an official 2.6-test1 already. Adding new > > features after that is something we should avoid. > > You are right, of course. My current working situation did not permit me to > get this done earlier. > > > Cryptsetup and dependencies should be added to packages.opt if we > > need them as packages on the ISO. > > Adding opt/popt to the ISO might create hidden problems, because > > other (core)ports will link against popt if installed. Currently > > our ISO bootstrap process can not prevent that, so we have to > > carefully check all packages after the bootstrap. > > That's true. Let me know if I can help out. > > > I guess your final idea is to have a versioned tarball somewhere for > > download and not to provide the two binaries within the port? > > It'd save the user from going through (some) hassle, see below.
Sorry, I mean a tarball with at least the two big binaries busybox and cryptsetup in it. With your current solution ever user is forced to download them with ports -u. > > > Do we really need a binary port at all? It should be possible to > > create cryptsetup-static in opt/cryptsetup? Is the busybox binary > > in any kind special for cryptsetup or can we use a new busybox port > > for that purpose? > > It's not that easy to build it statically linked; libdevmapper needs to be > linked statically for this, too, that's why I provided cryptsetup as a binary. > Not a problem, having a static libdevmapper seem to be a good idea anyway. I'll commit an updated version of libdevmapper soon. best regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:[email protected] Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux _______________________________________________ crux-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux-devel
