Re: [again] basedebs.tgz: Supported or not?
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:13:55AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Right. I was thinking it should be generated (and not by default) by
> > building debootstrap a special way, with ByHand entries and a
> > changelog and all that. I talked to AJ about that, he provisionally
> > ok'd but he should get approval or at least asked about any such
> > changes (being also an archive maintainer).
>
> Right. I expect to make a maintainer upload of debootstrap sometime
> this week which'll do that. At that point, we/I'll just build basedebs
> tarballs on auric "regularly".
Excellent.
> > I belive you want to split it into 1.44M disk images as well.
>
> How do you want this done? Just split, so they can be catted back
> together to make the original file, or something more complicated (so
> you can verify the disks are put in in the right order)?
Just split is fine.
> Does anyone care about 1.2MB disk images, or anything else? Do we want
> this done for all architectures, or are disk images unnecessary for some
> (s390, maybe)?
Some architectures don't seem to care. I guess if porters don't
bother making the special upload of debootstrap we know they don't
care? Is that good enough?
> I guess something like:
> dists/woody/main/
> disks-i386/
> current/
> base-images/
> basedebs-3.0.tar.gz
> basedebs-3.0-1440.001
> ..
> basedebs-3.0-1440.0xx
>
> is a reasonable way to lay it out. Is it reasonable to expect that people
> will be able to handle the long filenames and the multiple .'s?
I would suggest:
dists/woody/main/disks-i386/base-images-current ->
symlink to base-images-YYYYMMDD
dists/woody/main/disks-i386/base-images-YYYYMMDD/basedebs.tgz
dists/woody/main/disks-i386/base-images-YYYYMMDD/images-1.44/base-01.bin
dists/woody/main/disks-i386/base-images-YYYYMMDD/images-1.44/base-02.bin
...
The main thing is that I think it's going to cause a serious
maint. headache to put the images as a subdir of boot-floppies
(disks-i386/current), even though that is, at some level, an intuitive
place. It's going to be a headache because boot-floppies updates
would require moving aroudn the base stuff.
Also, I think we're avoiding headache by keeping to 8.3 (DOS) naming
conventions.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: