[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: busybox dependacies -- use virtual packages?

Blars Blarson wrote:
> Status for different parts of debian-installer.  The numbers are
> approximate (as in +/- 50%) and may change in any direction, at any
> time.
> [0%]     - Not begun
> 	- Some kind of a mechanism for udebs to declare what parts of
> 	  busybox they need, so we can ensure that all deps are met while
> 	  keeping the busybox footprint small.
>           Packages depending on base-installer should use the
> 	  utilities in /target so we can keep busybox's size down.          
> If this is still the case, and udebs use the same type of dependencies
> as normal debs, how about using virtual packages to do this?  Busybox
> would provide the packages it has been compiled with (it may be
> possible to automate this) and packages that need something that
> busybox can supply would depend on the individual components.
> A busybox compiled to do ls, mkfs, and du would provide busybox-ls,
> busybox-mkfs, and busybox-du.  Packages requiring these facilities
> would depend on them, with a possible alternate of the regular package
> or udeb.
> (The examples are bogus, I have not looked at busybox to see if it
> actually has these options.)
> This would mean a potentially large number of virtual udebs, all with
> the same prefix.  By using an existing mechanism, the amount of work
> needed should be as small as possible.

I wonder if this would save any space in the end, since this would
inflate the size of the control file with all the provides and depends.

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpQovNjdyULO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: