Re: [Leaf-devel] How-to get rid of LRP kernel patches
Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > > > My thought, too, is that all packages EXCEPT root.lrp could be put on > > the network on an FTP host or such like - and thus, not only could the > > system be updated on the fly, but if you had multiple hosts they would > > all have their sources updated at the same time, and so on. > > See trinix... > http://www.trinux.org/ See Oxygen http://leaf.sourceforge.net/pub/oxygen/ Trinux is good but inflexible - Oxygen is more of a general distribution, and makes a good firewall, or router, or network diagnostics tool, or system recovery tool. Trinux was a model - but this is better. Plus, Trinux has a lot more BIG packages than does Oxygen... ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: How to keep config files separate from the packages
> My thought, too, is that all packages EXCEPT root.lrp could be put on > the network on an FTP host or such like - and thus, not only could the > system be updated on the fly, but if you had multiple hosts they would > all have their sources updated at the same time, and so on. See trinix... http://www.trinux.org/ IMHO, the big thing missing in this scenerio is a "real" package format (can still be tgz, with just a bit of padding at the beginning or end containing extensions), geared towards building a file-system from scratch every time, and some form of cryptographic signature for package authentication. Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] gatping with debugging symbols
Jacques Nilo wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "arne @ loopback . org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I would go a step further. make a minimal busybox > > only containing very few > > applets(tar,msh as shell,mount,ls,cat,...) > > And link it statically with > > uClibc. This will result in a quite small binary and you don't need to > > include a big libc... > I do not [understand] the interest of doing that in > an LRP distro. You will need libc > and ld-linux libraries anyway so why not putting them in initrd.gz ? > If you compile statically even with uClibc you would > loose disk space at the end... Oxygen development had busybox compiled with uClibc and this is very useful, actually. It permits the removal of glibc from root.lrp, which means that glibc can be updated just by adding the appropriate glibc package - with appropriate room, of course. My thought, too, is that all packages EXCEPT root.lrp could be put on the network on an FTP host or such like - and thus, not only could the system be updated on the fly, but if you had multiple hosts they would all have their sources updated at the same time, and so on. >From a development standpoint, it is also nice because it shrinks root.lrp down by about half, and also means that loading root.lrp goes faster. Only thing is, MY compiled busybox is contains dozens and dozens of applications - not the minimalist version envisioned by Arne. > > The Problem with your previous post is, that you can not load the > > loadmod.lrp from the boot medium cause you need the modules > > from there to access your boot medium. > I do not understand that. If you need to mount a special driver to read > your boot medium, obviously you cannot have either the original root.lrp > nor my boomod.lrp package on this boot medium. The bootable CDROM is a perfect example of this quandry. Syslinux can boot the CDROM, and load the Linux kernel, and so on - but the "floppy" image is not accessible by Linux (only by syslinux). So once the kernel is loaded and running, all packages must come from the CDROM itself, not from the bootable image. > Well I guess we will have to move to glibc 2.1 or 2.2 > at some point. But we all know that will lead to > a somewhat bigger LRP distro... Oxygen is using glibc 2.1 on floppy in its development versions - and it works well. Converting to glibc 2.2 is a little scary - just how much space would I lose THEN? At least the upgrade is easy: # rm libc6.lrp # cp /tmp/new/libc6.lrp /mnt/floppy :-) ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] How-to get rid of LRP kernel patches
Matt Schalit wrote: > I got around to replacing the ipmask-0.30 shell script > with the 0.32 compiled version on the LEAF oxygen packages site. > > I don't get the logic of the -c option. It says: > -c Display only CIDR > > So why would that output ip/cidr? > # ipmask -c 10.2.3.4 -m 255.255.128.0 > 10.2.0.0/17 > > That can't be what you meant for it to do, can it? Sure. I had a choice of returning /17 ...and of returning... 10.2.0.0/17 ...and I chose the latter. It seems to make more sense, since the idea of ipmask was to return all manner of determined info in a script. This, however, means that anything that used the ipmask shell script had to be changed, since it only returned the /17 instead of everything. ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: [Leaf-devel] Re: How to keep config files separate from the packages
- Original Message - From: "arne @ loopback . org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I would go a step further. make a minimal busybox only containing very few > applets(tar,msh as shell,mount,ls,cat,...) And link it statically with > uClibc. This will result in a quite small binary and you don't need to > include a big libc... I do not the interest of doing that in an LRP distro. You will need libc and ld-linux libraries anyway so why not putting them in initrd.gz ? If you compile statically even with uClibc you would loose disk space at the end... > > That is why you really don't need to back-up this as you would need it > > for a standard package with config files and the like. And I also do > > not see the need to make modification to root.linuxrc in the LRP > > environnement: there is not reason to change this script outside of LRP > > development. > > My only concern with this is the initial module loading introduced by > > Charles in dachstein. But I think I have found a solution to take care > > of this. See previous post. > > The Problem with your previous post is, that you can not load the > loadmod.lrp from the boot medium cause you need the modules from there to > access your boot medium. I do not understand that. If you need to mount a special driver to read your boot medium, obviously you cannot have either the original root.lrp nor my boomod.lrp package on this boot medium. It has to be on a floppy. > I would prefer to put it into the kernel, this would lead to a few customed > kernels, but only a few. As i want to concentrate my work on LRP for Systems > with CD,harddisk or flashdisk i have no Problem with a larger kernel. Obviously that is a safe solution. > My main Problem is to have it the size to fit on a floppy. But if we do not > use a embedded libc we will run into problems anyway, as fewer programs will > support glibc-2.0.7 and we have to switch to another libc. This will break > the floppy stuff (as using kernel 2.4 might). Well I guess we will have to move to glibc 2.1 or 2.2 at some point. But we all know that will lead to a somewhat bigger LRP distro... Jacques ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: How to keep config files separate from the packages
Jacques Nilo wrote: > Well I think initrd.gz should contain as few things as possible. In my > proposal it boils down basically to libc6, ld-linux, ash, busybox, sed > and root.linuxrc. In this case, it's like this: libc6 (500k), ash (90k), busybox (150k), sed (64k), and others so right away you've practically got all of root.lrp in there anyway. Also, in the case of Oxygen development, libc6 is a separate package - I think sed is too. > That is why you really don't need to back-up this as you would need it > for a standard package with config files and the like. And I also do > not see the need to make modification to root.linuxrc in the LRP > environnement: there is not reason to change this script outside of LRP > development. However, in LRP development updating root.lrp happens often. Also, people make changes anyway - for strange hardware, for special features, etc. One easy example would be the upgrading to glibc 2.1 or 2.2 - or whatever. Or updating busybox. ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] Re: How to keep config files separate from the packages
"Angelacos, Nathan" wrote:
> load_disk_package contains this line:
>
> [ "${PKG##*/}" = "${CONFIG##*/}" ] && return 0
>
> which if I read correctly, exits if the current package is the config
> package. That seems like the right thing to do (although we do load root.lrp
> twice.) However, the consequence is that the configuration lrp won't be
> loaded from clean_up - load_all_packages calls load_disk_package.
This is as it should be (except root.lrp should NOT be loaded twice).
load_all_packages should only be called to load all specified packages
on a "packages " line.
When the system is completely done and is about to exit, THEN it should
extract the file in $TMPCONFIG. What happens is the script copies the
config.lrp (or whatever) over to /tmp and stores it until all packages
are loaded from all sources - THEN it overwrites the configuration files
with those in /tmp/config.lrp. Note that at this point the original
disk (source) containing config.lrp could be anywhere - removed, down,
whatever. That's why /tmp/config.lrp is made.
> Is the correct solution to delete the line above in "load_disk_package" and
> let the config.lrp load twice, like root.lrp is?
No, the correct solution is to remove root.lrp, too - to fix THAT
problem :)
I did some more work on main.load; I'll upload it soon.
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
