Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
Richard Owlett wrote: > I suspect the first is closer to my mental image. Did you use > debootstrap with --variant=minbase, grml-debootstrap with --nopackages, > OR something else? For the first to work, I just copy the boot directory to the card/usb stick and make it bootable (grub install). The thing here is that kernel must be same version as on the system - thus after kernel or initrd update procedure should be repeated. I don't use apt in general and regarding debootstrap with --variant=minbase is OK regards
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
On 04/15/2018 03:58 PM, Brian wrote: On Sun 15 Apr 2018 at 14:19:50 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: On 04/15/2018 12:43 PM, Brian wrote: On Sun 15 Apr 2018 at 08:55:45 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: What are the trade-offs of choosing between debootstrap and grml-debootstap? I understand that either way I have some reading to do ;/ Does this relate to your suspicions? Or, is it an unrelated question? It *IS* the question. Is there a difference in capability between DEBOOTSTRAP and GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP? Or is it *ONLY* a difference of perceived convenience which will differ between individuals and/or projects From my reading of https://grml.org/grml-debootstrap/ I think it is the latter. I had visited that page and had suspected that. I was looking for confirmation. Thank you.
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
On Sun 15 Apr 2018 at 14:19:50 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 04/15/2018 12:43 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Sun 15 Apr 2018 at 08:55:45 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > > > > What are the trade-offs of choosing between debootstrap and > > > grml-debootstap? > > > I understand that either way I have some reading to do ;/ > > > > Does this relate to your suspicions? Or, is it an unrelated question? > > > > It *IS* the question. > Is there a difference in capability between DEBOOTSTRAP and > GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP? > Or is it *ONLY* a difference of perceived convenience which will differ > between individuals and/or projects >From my reading of https://grml.org/grml-debootstrap/ I think it is the latter. -- Brian.
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
On 04/15/2018 02:32 PM, Forest Dean Feighner wrote:
Could you skip all that and use something like busybox or buildroot?
I hadn't recalled either at the moment. Busybox might have an edge as it
in the Debian repository {and I even have it installed - will have to
investigate why I installed it}
Thank you.
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
Could you skip all that and use something like busybox or buildroot? On Sun, Apr 15, 2018, 3:20 PM Richard Owlett wrote: > On 04/15/2018 12:43 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Sun 15 Apr 2018 at 08:55:45 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > >> I wish to do an _*EXTREMELY*_ minimalist install of Debian to a USB > flash > >> drive (aka /dev/sdb1) assuming use as a MBR device. > >> > >> I currently use the i386 flavor of Stretch. > >> My hardware allows choosing to boot from a flash drive. > >> > >> I suspect that if using deboostrap the closest I can come is using > >> "--variant=minbase" which apparently installs apt. My definition of > >> "minimalist" would prefer not to. > > > > I decided to answer this post without equating "idiosyncratic" with > > "bonkers". > > ROFL <*GRIN*> > "bonkers" implies "not of sound mind. > "idiosyncratic" explicitly states my assumption that no-one else may > have _exactly_ my goals > > > > > apt is Priority: important. Try removing it from any Debian system. > > For installing, your definition of "minimalist" is of no importance > > or consequence. > > To you, likely . > BTW, you just reminded me that apt has a "purge" command. > If DEBOOTSTRAP / GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP installs "cruft", that could be useful. > Might even attempt using apt to remove itself ;/ > > Suggested reading: > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-pkg_basics.en supports > my contention that only "Priority: Required" packages are absolutely > necessary. > > It states (in part): > > Systems with only the Required packages are probably unusable, but they > > do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot > > and install more software. > > > > > > > >> For my definitely idiosyncratic purposes *absolutely NOTHING* but grub > >> related tools will _ever_ be run from this device. > >> > >> What are the trade-offs of choosing between debootstrap and > grml-debootstap? > >> I understand that either way I have some reading to do ;/ > > > > Does this relate to your suspicions? Or, is it an unrelated question? > > > > It *IS* the question. > Is there a difference in capability between DEBOOTSTRAP and > GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP? > Or is it *ONLY* a difference of perceived convenience which will differ > between individuals and/or projects? > > > >
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
On 04/15/2018 12:43 PM, Brian wrote: On Sun 15 Apr 2018 at 08:55:45 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: I wish to do an _*EXTREMELY*_ minimalist install of Debian to a USB flash drive (aka /dev/sdb1) assuming use as a MBR device. I currently use the i386 flavor of Stretch. My hardware allows choosing to boot from a flash drive. I suspect that if using deboostrap the closest I can come is using "--variant=minbase" which apparently installs apt. My definition of "minimalist" would prefer not to. I decided to answer this post without equating "idiosyncratic" with "bonkers". ROFL <*GRIN*> "bonkers" implies "not of sound mind. "idiosyncratic" explicitly states my assumption that no-one else may have _exactly_ my goals apt is Priority: important. Try removing it from any Debian system. For installing, your definition of "minimalist" is of no importance or consequence. To you, likely . BTW, you just reminded me that apt has a "purge" command. If DEBOOTSTRAP / GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP installs "cruft", that could be useful. Might even attempt using apt to remove itself ;/ Suggested reading: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-pkg_basics.en supports my contention that only "Priority: Required" packages are absolutely necessary. It states (in part): Systems with only the Required packages are probably unusable, but they do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install more software. For my definitely idiosyncratic purposes *absolutely NOTHING* but grub related tools will _ever_ be run from this device. What are the trade-offs of choosing between debootstrap and grml-debootstap? I understand that either way I have some reading to do ;/ Does this relate to your suspicions? Or, is it an unrelated question? It *IS* the question. Is there a difference in capability between DEBOOTSTRAP and GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP? Or is it *ONLY* a difference of perceived convenience which will differ between individuals and/or projects?
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
On 04/15/2018 12:30 PM, deloptes wrote: Richard Owlett wrote: I wish to do an _*EXTREMELY*_ minimalist install of Debian to a USB flash drive (aka /dev/sdb1) assuming use as a MBR device. if you just want to boot in your system, then you take only the boot directory - this is the simplest way and less consuming space. I used such approach with very old 256MB SD card to boot raspberry that runs fon NFS root. if you want some minimal rescue disk debootstrap would work or some kind of minimalistic distro - as grub is almost everywhere the same. I checked SLAX recently - just dd the iso to usb and done. total size of distro was about 360MB including GUI I hope this helps regards I suspect the first is closer to my mental image. Did you use debootstrap with --variant=minbase, grml-debootstrap with --nopackages, OR something else? Thank you.
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
On Sun 15 Apr 2018 at 08:55:45 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > I wish to do an _*EXTREMELY*_ minimalist install of Debian to a USB flash > drive (aka /dev/sdb1) assuming use as a MBR device. > > I currently use the i386 flavor of Stretch. > My hardware allows choosing to boot from a flash drive. > > I suspect that if using deboostrap the closest I can come is using > "--variant=minbase" which apparently installs apt. My definition of > "minimalist" would prefer not to. I decided to answer this post without equating "idiosyncratic" with "bonkers". apt is Priority: important. Try removing it from any Debian system. For installing, your definition of "minimalist" is of no importance or consequence. > For my definitely idiosyncratic purposes *absolutely NOTHING* but grub > related tools will _ever_ be run from this device. > > What are the trade-offs of choosing between debootstrap and grml-debootstap? > I understand that either way I have some reading to do ;/ Does this relate to your suspicions? Or, is it an unrelated question? -- Brian.
Re: DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
Richard Owlett wrote: > I wish to do an _*EXTREMELY*_ minimalist install of Debian to a USB > flash drive (aka /dev/sdb1) assuming use as a MBR device. if you just want to boot in your system, then you take only the boot directory - this is the simplest way and less consuming space. I used such approach with very old 256MB SD card to boot raspberry that runs fon NFS root. if you want some minimal rescue disk debootstrap would work or some kind of minimalistic distro - as grub is almost everywhere the same. I checked SLAX recently - just dd the iso to usb and done. total size of distro was about 360MB including GUI I hope this helps regards
DEBOOTSTRAP or GRML-DEBOOTSTRAP more suitable?
I wish to do an _*EXTREMELY*_ minimalist install of Debian to a USB flash drive (aka /dev/sdb1) assuming use as a MBR device. I currently use the i386 flavor of Stretch. My hardware allows choosing to boot from a flash drive. I suspect that if using deboostrap the closest I can come is using "--variant=minbase" which apparently installs apt. My definition of "minimalist" would prefer not to. For my definitely idiosyncratic purposes *absolutely NOTHING* but grub related tools will _ever_ be run from this device. What are the trade-offs of choosing between debootstrap and grml-debootstap? I understand that either way I have some reading to do ;/ TIA
