Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Manoj Srivastava]

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 > For such a feature to really float is going to demand that people
 > write their maintainer scripts a little bit differently.

Or, once given a list of legally prunable paths, one may
 write tests around using files from those pathx (like, say,
 /usr/share/doc).

manoj
-- 
Think it's time I'm leavin' / Nothin' here to make me stay. Led
Zeppelin
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:45:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Another approach we're thinking about is regular dpkg support for
> > directory exclusion during package unpack, for things like documentation
> > and localization files.  Of course, that's more an issue for
> > debian-dpkg... :)
> 
> Please Progeny guys, make everyone's day and do this. It shouldn't even
> be too hard to do; dpkg parses the tars itself to install files as
> .dpkg-new at first, so you just have to hook into the right places and
> make it do nothing for some files. (Famous last words.) And there is
> even dpkg.cfg already to put the exclude regexps in.
> 
> -- 
> see shy jo, who has a 30 mb (uncompressed) debian install, which was
> _not_ fun to do

Well, I'll definitely bring this up to the other guys on my team.

I am concerned about the possible consequences of such a feature though,
since it will enable users to break the assumptions of postinst and
prerm scripts.  Such scripts can generally assume that the "package has
been unpacked" when they run.  But with a path pruning feature, some
parts of the package may never be unpacked.

For such a feature to really float is going to demand that people write
their maintainer scripts a little bit differently.

-- 
Branden Robinson  | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   | 1024D/9C0BCBFB
Progeny Linux Systems | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C
  | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Joey Hess]

Glenn McGrath wrote:
> udebs are a technical solution to a social problem

Not entirely. I avoided some picky policy stuff with udebs, but as much
of the idea was to make sure that the stuff used by the installer did
not bloat the main packages lists, and to make sure nobody would install
it by accident on a real system.

-- 
see shy jo


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Joey Hess]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> Another approach we're thinking about is regular dpkg support for
> directory exclusion during package unpack, for things like documentation
> and localization files.  Of course, that's more an issue for
> debian-dpkg... :)

Please Progeny guys, make everyone's day and do this. It shouldn't even
be too hard to do; dpkg parses the tars itself to install files as
.dpkg-new at first, so you just have to hook into the right places and
make it do nothing for some files. (Famous last words.) And there is
even dpkg.cfg already to put the exclude regexps in.

-- 
see shy jo, who has a 30 mb (uncompressed) debian install, which was
_not_ fun to do


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Glenn McGrath]

On 27 Feb 2003 18:56:09 +0100
Martin Sjögren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Another approach we're thinking about is regular dpkg support for
> > directory exclusion during package unpack, for things like
> > documentation and localization files.  Of course, that's more an
> > issue for debian-dpkg... :)
> 
> Isn't that what has been discussed before, for handhelds and stuff? If
> you're willing to make udebs anyway, you won't need this though, as I
> don't see why dpkg wouldn't be able to handle udebs. There's nothing
> magic about udebs, they just happen to have different names and don't
> follow policy more than they like...
> 

(sorry, this has tuned into a bit of a rant)

The reason udeb's came about is that the debian-installer wanted to be
modular, we wanted these modules to be distirubted via debian mirrors,
and we didnt want any non-functional parts inside (docs, copyright
notice etc).

This last point means they arent valid debs according to policy and as
such arent allowed into the archive, by renaming them to something other
than debian package (they are installer _modules_) meant that the
bureaucracy was avoided.

The binaries of a .udeb are different to the .deb counterparts, they are
usually compiled with -Os and other options to make the binaries
smaller, so having an option to strip docs using dpkg would not avoid
requiring another package (woops, debian installer module).

udebs are a technical solution to a social problem, i hope that one day
debian policy will reflect the needs of the installer. In the mean time
they do serve as a convenient way of distributing packages (woops,
modules).

Technically i think the biggest problem with minimal debian systems is
that debian packages dont declare dependencies on essential packages,
installign Essential packages and their dependencies requires 62MB
(dependencies pull in dselect, which pulls in c++ libs etc).

As much as i like dselect, i shudder at the thought of running it, or
even needing it to exist in my space constrained environment.

If all the essential packages wernt installed then the dependency
 system breaks.

Debian currently just isnt geared toward small environments, and the
steps required to improve the situation dont seem to be a priority, i do
hope the situation improves.



Glenn


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Alastair McKinstry]

Has anyone looked at the ipkg (sp?) format used on Compaq iPaqs?
Its an cut-down dpkg format for embedded use.

(I've just heard of it, not investigated it. A comparison by someone who
knows both, and the debate over dpkg v2, would be nice).

Regards,
Alastair


On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 17:56, Martin Sjögren wrote:
> tor 2003-02-27 klockan 17.34 skrev Branden Robinson:
> > [I have set Mail-Followup-To; please To/CC me on replies.
> > How feasible would it be to use udebs as "real" packages?  I note that
> > udpkg appears to support maintainer scripts, though I don't know it
> > supports them as comprehensively as regular dpkg (see sections 6.4 and
> > 6.5 of the Debian Policy Manual).
> 
> I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking. Are you asking for how
> nifty things you can do with udpkg? Right now, udpkg only calls
>   /.../package.config configure
>   /.../package.postinst configure
> and that's it. I don't see how we would need any *rm scripts in the
> installer. :)
> 
> This can, I guess, be expanded if dpkg being tiny is more important than
> dpkg being stellar at maintainer scripts.
> 
> > Another approach we're thinking about is regular dpkg support for
> > directory exclusion during package unpack, for things like documentation
> > and localization files.  Of course, that's more an issue for
> > debian-dpkg... :)
> 
> Isn't that what has been discussed before, for handhelds and stuff? If
> you're willing to make udebs anyway, you won't need this though, as I
> don't see why dpkg wouldn't be able to handle udebs. There's nothing
> magic about udebs, they just happen to have different names and don't
> follow policy more than they like...
> 
> 
> /Martin
-- 
Alastair McKinstry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG Key fingerprint = 9E64 E714 8E08 81F9 F3DC  1020 FA8E 3790 9051 38F4

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself.

- --Thomas Paine



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:56:09PM +0100, Martin Sj?gren wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking. Are you asking for how
> nifty things you can do with udpkg? Right now, udpkg only calls
>   /.../package.config configure
>   /.../package.postinst configure
> and that's it. I don't see how we would need any *rm scripts in the
> installer. :)

You wouldn't.  I see what you mean, though.

> This can, I guess, be expanded if dpkg being tiny is more important than
> dpkg being stellar at maintainer scripts.

I guess that sort of depends.

> Isn't that what has been discussed before, for handhelds and stuff? If
> you're willing to make udebs anyway, you won't need this though, as I
> don't see why dpkg wouldn't be able to handle udebs. There's nothing
> magic about udebs, they just happen to have different names and don't
> follow policy more than they like...

Yes.  I was just wondering what udpkg's capabilities are.

Thanks for the feedback!

-- 
Branden Robinson  | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   | 1024D/9C0BCBFB
Progeny Linux Systems | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C
  | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: udebs for more than just installation

[Martin Sjögren]

tor 2003-02-27 klockan 17.34 skrev Branden Robinson:
> [I have set Mail-Followup-To; please To/CC me on replies.
> How feasible would it be to use udebs as "real" packages?  I note that
> udpkg appears to support maintainer scripts, though I don't know it
> supports them as comprehensively as regular dpkg (see sections 6.4 and
> 6.5 of the Debian Policy Manual).

I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking. Are you asking for how
nifty things you can do with udpkg? Right now, udpkg only calls
  /.../package.config configure
  /.../package.postinst configure
and that's it. I don't see how we would need any *rm scripts in the
installer. :)

This can, I guess, be expanded if dpkg being tiny is more important than
dpkg being stellar at maintainer scripts.

> Another approach we're thinking about is regular dpkg support for
> directory exclusion during package unpack, for things like documentation
> and localization files.  Of course, that's more an issue for
> debian-dpkg... :)

Isn't that what has been discussed before, for handhelds and stuff? If
you're willing to make udebs anyway, you won't need this though, as I
don't see why dpkg wouldn't be able to handle udebs. There's nothing
magic about udebs, they just happen to have different names and don't
follow policy more than they like...


/Martin


signature.asc
Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signeradmeddelandedel

udebs for more than just installation

[Branden Robinson]

[I have set Mail-Followup-To; please To/CC me on replies.]

Hi guys,

Over here at Progeny we're wondering about the feasibility of using
udebs in resource-constrained environments for more than just
installation.

How feasible would it be to use udebs as "real" packages?  I note that
udpkg appears to support maintainer scripts, though I don't know it
supports them as comprehensively as regular dpkg (see sections 6.4 and
6.5 of the Debian Policy Manual).

Another approach we're thinking about is regular dpkg support for
directory exclusion during package unpack, for things like documentation
and localization files.  Of course, that's more an issue for
debian-dpkg... :)

Anyway, I thought you guys might have the best insights into udebs since
you use them the most.

-- 
Branden Robinson  | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   | 1024D/9C0BCBFB
Progeny Linux Systems | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C
  | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]