Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for the packaging of those libs and of the binaries that were
> reduced, I'm not sure what would be best. IIRC most stuff included in
> boot-floppies is taken right from real packages installed on the
> machine where they are built. The e2fsprogs-bf I've built contains
> stuff in e2fsprogs, so mush conflict with him to be installed, which
> 1) is a pain for people building boot-floppies,
No, its not a pain for us. We can build root to contain with one
package, while a conflicting package is locally installed. It's no
big deal for us.
So I would recommend setting up conflicts/replaces as need, and
letting the e2fsprogs-bf package be for root-building only.
> 2) creates a package
> that noone should ever installed except for building boot-floppies.
Not even then :). It's a package that is just used when constructing
the root disk. I dont' think that will cause problems with us.
> Would it be OK to put them in some /usr/lib/boot-floppies so that they
> won't interfere with what is installed ?
That makes more work for us, but it's doable. I mean, don't do that
as a favor to us, it's just going to make our life harder.
> Or to put that in a tar.gz in the pool, where the boot-gloppies
> built will know to find it ?
Ew, please, no.
> Or wouldn't it be best to have boot-floppies "apt-get source
> e2fsprogs" and run "debian/rules build-bf" instead ?
Ew, please, no.
> It would require some tweeking so that the bf package does not get
> built and uploaded into the dist, but it may be worth it.
I don't really see the problem with having an e2fsprogs-bf package,
just for root.bin, which no one should ever normally install...
This can be used in debian-installer too, as David points out.
--
.....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
