Re: powerpc woody bf installation status
Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net> writes:
> At 12:46 PM -0700 5/11/01, David Whedon wrote:
> >Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:56:34PM -0500 wrote:
> > > The next major stumbling block I ran into was that pump doesn't work
> > > (bts# 94176). Pump has annoyed me for a number of reasons including
> > > bts#64092 and its kin. I think there was some discussion some time ago
> > > about perhaps using dhcp-client. So I hacked dhcp-client to work. It
> > > works very well. The downside is that dhcp-client takes up a bit more
> > > space than pump: 137930 (more if kernel 2.0 support is required) vs.
> >I don't think we need to directly support 2.0.x on boot-floppies, though if we
> >decide not to we should make a note in the docs that dhcp won't work if you
> >replace the kernel with a 2.0 serias.
No, kernel 2.0 not needed, no one uses it.
> > > 58112. It's easy enough to #def this into/out of dbootstrap, but not
> > > quite so trivial to maintain both versions of the EXTRACT files. Let me
> > > know if you want the patch, even if just for dbootstrap.
> >I've got an idea. Why don't we use dhcp-client-udeb?
Um, I'm a bit hesitant to add more special cases and wierd handling
(such as udeb) to the boot-floppies.
Are there any udebs in Woody? Remember, this needs to be buildable by
pure woody.
> Sounds like a good plan. /sbin/dhclient in the deb is a script that
> calls either dhclient-2.2.x or dhclient-2.0.x depending on uname -r. I
> just dropped dhclient-2.0.x and dhclient from the EXTRACT lists. I
> wonder if dhclient-2.2.x is renamed dhclient in the udeb? I suppose
> I'll just have to see.
Again, I'm fine with moving to dhclient -- I would prefer to use the
proper package rather than the udeb, space be damned.
> Should I fix dbootstrap to look for dhclient and failing that pump?
> That would give us more flexibility and it shouldn't be hard to do.
Sure, please.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onshore.com.....<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: