> > It will be much easier to maintain if it can be used outside the
> > installer.
> >
> > What size are you prepared to pay if any for full support, if i could
> > get it down to 1 KB difference would that be ok ?
>
> How about make it selectable at compile time via BB_FEATURE_FULL_DPKG
> or s
On Thu Feb 15, 2001 at 11:29:47AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Even so 2.5KB to make it compatable with the proper tools sounds like a
> bargin to me.
>
> It will be much easier to maintain if it can be used outside the
> installer.
>
> What size are you prepared to pay if any for full support,
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > Well... putting it into busybox will bring it down to 7 or 8 kB with
> > full support, so it will still be smaller than an incomplete standalone
> > version.
> >
> > Even so 2.5KB to make it compatable with the proper tools sounds like a
> > bargin to
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > Well... putting it into busybox will bring it down to 7 or 8 kB with
> > full support, so it will still be smaller than an incomplete standalone
> > version.
> >
> > Even so 2.5KB to make it compatable with the proper tools sounds like a
> > bargin to
Glenn McGrath wrote:
> I was using /var/lib/dpkg/status.udeb while it was generating an
> incompatable status file, but that was half the reason i add full
> support, so post install we could use normal packaging tools and upgrade
> from existing udebs.
Um, upgrade from existing udebs?
*boggle*
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > Joey Hess wrote:
> > >
> > > Woah, woah. You added support for every field! Why? Udpkg is designed to
> > > be small, not complete! It's not meant to get along with dpkg.
> > >
> >
> > If not, could we please have it not interfere with anything in /var
Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Well... putting it into busybox will bring it down to 7 or 8 kB with
> full support, so it will still be smaller than an incomplete standalone
> version.
>
> Even so 2.5KB to make it compatable with the proper tools sounds like a
> bargin to me.
What are we gaining from th
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > I just checked in some changes to udpkg which should make it generate a
> > correct status file when a program is installed, this will mean dselect
> > and other standard packaging tools wont spit the dummy.
> > I have only tested it with one program
Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> >
> > Woah, woah. You added support for every field! Why? Udpkg is designed to
> > be small, not complete! It's not meant to get along with dpkg.
> >
>
> If not, could we please have it not interfere with anything in /var/lib/dpkg?
It's not intended to
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Woah, woah. You added support for every field! Why? Udpkg is designed to
> be small, not complete! It's not meant to get along with dpkg.
>
If not, could we please have it not interfere with anything in /var/lib/dpkg?
> Before:
> -rwxr-xr-x1 joey joey10748
Glenn McGrath wrote:
> I just checked in some changes to udpkg which should make it generate a
> correct status file when a program is installed, this will mean dselect
> and other standard packaging tools wont spit the dummy.
> I have only tested it with one program though, im sure there will som
I just checked in some changes to udpkg which should make it generate a
correct status file when a program is installed, this will mean dselect
and other standard packaging tools wont spit the dummy.
I have only tested it with one program though, im sure there will some
more problems to sort out.
12 matches
Mail list logo
