Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
On Monday 20 January 2003 09:49 am, Charles Steinkuehler 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. > > 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. Absolutely, ipkg is not/will not be a drag-n-drop replacement for the existing package system. I was thinking more along the lines of a starting point for a new package manipulation system. Use of ipkg would also require re-packaging to fit the ipkg systemany use of this will require quite a bit of time and work. -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net --- 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
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
Lynn Avants wrote: On Monday 20 January 2003 07:52 am, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: I 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. It is a replacement for dpkg and works with any *.deb as well as propietary 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. Specifically, 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). 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 writing a new loading system for lrpkg. In 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. I think your right on the money, though I think adding the missing 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 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. 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
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
On Monday 20 January 2003 07:52 am, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > I 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. It is a replacement for dpkg and works with any *.deb as well as propietary 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. > Specifically, 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). 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 writing a new loading system for lrpkg. > In 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. I think your right on the money, though I think adding the missing 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? -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net --- 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
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
Lynn Avants wrote: On Friday 17 January 2003 10:55 am, Erich Titl wrote: Hi Lynn & group 0.6 looks pretty antiquated to me. I believe they are at 0.99 now. Apparently the C-based stuff is the way they go and should the developers decide this is the way to go I think we should stick with the latest releases. I downloaded the latest CVS (0.99-43) and compiled it. There may have been a libc problem that I bypassed, but I'll need to make a package/repository and test it. The depends should be wget, busybox, and possibly md5. If anybody is killing themselves to take on some testing, let me know. I 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. Specifically, 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). In 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. -- 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
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
On Friday 17 January 2003 10:55 am, Erich Titl wrote: > Hi Lynn & group > > 0.6 looks pretty antiquated to me. I believe they are at 0.99 now. > Apparently the C-based stuff is the way they go and should the developers > decide this is the way to go I think we should stick with the latest > releases. I downloaded the latest CVS (0.99-43) and compiled it. There may have been a libc problem that I bypassed, but I'll need to make a package/repository and test it. The depends should be wget, busybox, and possibly md5. If anybody is killing themselves to take on some testing, let me know. -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net --- 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
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
Erich Titl wrote: Hi Lynn & group 0.6 looks pretty antiquated to me. I believe they are at 0.99 now. Apparently the C-based stuff is the way they go and should the developers decide this is the way to go I think we should stick with the latest releases. Not that I have lots of free time, but if someone tries to compile the packaging system for x86 and it doesn't work, I'll commit to taking a look as to why, and see if I can't get it building properly on standard PC's targeting x86 hardware. I do some embedded stuff for my day job, and am familiar with porting stuff between architectures, using cross-compilers, and etc. Not saying I'll be able to get it going if it's something that will take a lot of work, but I'll commit to taking the time to look at it if someone else will commit to a test-comile first, verifying there actually *IS* a problem. :) -- Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com - A 128-bit supercerts will allow you to extend the highest allowed 128 bit encryption to all your clients even if they use browsers that are limited to 40 bit encryption. Get a guide here:http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0030en ___ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
Hi Lynn & group 0.6 looks pretty antiquated to me. I believe they are at 0.99 now. Apparently the C-based stuff is the way they go and should the developers decide this is the way to go I think we should stick with the latest releases. regards Erich At 22:43 16.01.2003 -0600, you wrote: On Thursday 16 January 2003 02:13 pm, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 20:31, Lynn Avants wrote: > > Very nice and _tiny_! The 0.6 version is ash and should only need "wget" > > to work with LEAF. "wget" is availiable as a LEAF utility already. > > Personally, I already prefer it to udeb after reading the scripts! > THINK Püntenstrasse 39 8143 Stallikon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint: BC9A 25BC 3954 3BC8 C024 8D8A B7D4 FF9D 05B8 0A16 --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com - A 128-bit supercerts will allow you to extend the highest allowed 128 bit encryption to all your clients even if they use browsers that are limited to 40 bit encryption. Get a guide here:http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0030en ___ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
On Thursday 16 January 2003 02:13 pm, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 20:31, Lynn Avants wrote: > > Very nice and _tiny_! The 0.6 version is ash and should only need "wget" > > to work with LEAF. "wget" is availiable as a LEAF utility already. > > Personally, I already prefer it to udeb after reading the scripts! > > Lynn, > Does the ash script support dependency checking like the C code? Couldn't find a changelog, but after checking the script it does. There are several expansions on the dependancy checking it later versions (C, not sh). If I can get around to it, I'll try and see if the C will compile x86, from what I've found it compiles/cross-compiles to the arm architecture only in the stock form.I not wouldn't imagine this would be very hard to port though. I'd like to do some testing with some packages with the 0.6 scripts first and start from there. -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en ___ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 20:31, Lynn Avants wrote: > Very nice and _tiny_! The 0.6 version is ash and should only need "wget" > to work with LEAF. "wget" is availiable as a LEAF utility already. Personally, > I already prefer it to udeb after reading the scripts! Lynn, Does the ash script support dependency checking like the C code? -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ http://sitedocs.sf.net/ http://ffl.sf.net/ --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en ___ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
Very nice and _tiny_! The 0.6 version is ash and should only need "wget" to work with LEAF. "wget" is availiable as a LEAF utility already. Personally, I already prefer it to udeb after reading the scripts! Package: ipkg Essential: yes Priority: required Version: 0.6 Architecture: all Maintainer: Carl Worth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Depends: shellutils, textutils, sed, grep, gzip, tar, wget Description: Lightweight package management system Note: The "*.ipk" == "*.tgz" This version can be downloaded from: ftp://ftp.handhelds.org/pub/linux/dists/familiar/releases/v0.4/packages/armv4l/ipkg_0.6_all.ipk -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: A Thawte Code Signing Certificate is essential in establishing user confidence by providing assurance of authenticity and code integrity. Download our Free Code Signing guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0028en ___ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 02:38 pm, Mike Noyes wrote: > Everyone, > Some of you may find this interesting. > > iPKG the Itsy Package Management System > http://www.handhelds.org/z/wiki/iPKG > > I wonder how it compares with udeb tools? A quick look shows that it would be quite portable with a smaller footprint than udeb. I'm not sure what changes is any will be needed to change "arm" to "x86", but I'll attempt to come up with an older shell-script version which should be easily portable to LEAF. Nice catch Mike! -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: A Thawte Code Signing Certificate is essential in establishing user confidence by providing assurance of authenticity and code integrity. Download our Free Code Signing guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0028en ___ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[leaf-devel] iPKG (package management system)
Everyone, Some of you may find this interesting. iPKG the Itsy Package Management System http://www.handhelds.org/z/wiki/iPKG I wonder how it compares with udeb tools? -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ http://sitedocs.sf.net/ http://ffl.sf.net/ --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Take your first step towards giving your online business a competitive advantage. Test-drive a Thawte SSL certificate - our easy online guide will show you how. Click here to get started: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0027en ___ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
