Lynn Avants 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.On Monday 20 January 2003 07:52 am, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:It is a replacement for dpkg and works with any *.deb as well as propietaryI did some brief looking over of the ipkg stuff, and while it does look like a useful packaging system for "conventional" systems, I didn't see anything that made it more appropriate for LEAF than debs or rpms, other than size.
type packages (tgz). It was designed for use with Linux on an iPaq because
dpkg and .deb/.udeb left far too large of a footprint. It is _much_ smaller,
but retains most capabilities such as loading via "wget", dependancy installation/check, removal from a running system w/depend check,
and the ability to use multiple "repositories". This is not per se a package
format as much as a package loading/unloading utility. It can be used
to make packages, but I think using/integrating our present backup system
would be preferrable.
I won't argue that, but dependancies can be a real pain and loading via network isn't painless by any means either. I figure adding backup capabilities inline to something like ipkg would be easier than writingSpecifically, LEAF re-builds a system image in ram after every boot, requiring the ability to easily re-build packages with modified configuration data (initial LRP systems) or save configuration data seperate from the main package (current Dachstein/Bering partial backups).
a new loading system for lrpkg.
I think your right on the money, though I think adding the missingIn my brief look through the ipkg docs, it doesn't appear to support easy re-building of a package from currently installed data, although I could be wrong. I also didn't see anything about storing configuration data seperately, although I could have missed this, and it shouldn't be too hard to add, if needed.
capabilities would be preferrable to something like porting 'apkg' and
adding dependancy checking code and network loading (if this isn't
already in 'apkg'). This is also backed by the Debian project, staying
more inline with compatibility. Menu-system is also supported with the current *.ipk implementation.
Thoughts?
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.
--
Charles Steinkuehler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------
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
