Re: Proposed build system
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 16:18, Sebastian Ley wrote:
> Am So, den 05.10.2003 schrieb Gaudenz Steinlin um 14:38:
>
> > The image target (which builds a floppy image) is not meaningfull for
> > every arch and every boot method. That i386 emulates floppys for cd
> > booting is a special case, not a general way of booting from cds. So if
> > we want to have a deb for all cases we should not only differentiate by
> > installation method (TYPE= cdrom, netboot, bootfloppy) but also by boot
> > method (cdrom, floppy, tftp, ...).
>
> Hm, I do not quite understand. We have the TYPES to roughly
> differentiate between the install flavours we want to provide. On
> different arches this may be differently implemented, this is supported
> by having pkg-lists, configurations and make targets variable for each
> architecture. If one target is not appliable for an arch at all, this
> target won't be built on that arch (denoted by deleting it from the
> Architectures: line of the corresponding package).
the main problem is, that the domains of debian-cd and the
debian-installer build system are not clearly separated. Floppy images
are built by debian-installer, cd-images in debian-cd. There are even
some targets for building cd's in debian-installer. IMO we should have
one build system for everything as a debian source package and build
some of the images (all the smaller ones) as debian binary packages.
Goswin summarized the different TYPES quite good. The problem is, that
to build everything necessary for debian-cd you have to build the initrd
target on powerpc and the image target on i386, so you have a different
targets for different arches. The best solution for this would be a
unified build system for debian-installer and debain-cd (see above).
>
> I'd propose to just autobuild the boot-images and put them into the
> archive. The same as is done presently e.g. by martin Sjogren:
> http://people.debian.org/~sjogren/d-i/images/daily/
This is a i386 only solution.
>
> To burden the autobuilders, archive and the mirrors with full cd sets is
> perhaps not a good idea, espacially when we want daily builds e.g. for
> unstable or testing builds.
Thus I propose to only build the smaller images (floppy, netinst,
buisnesscard) as binary packages, but have every possible image use the
same build mechanism.
regards,
gaudenz
Reply to: