Re: Proposed build system
Gaudenz Steinlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
One question is what our requirements are for this release:
1. What boot methods will be supported on each arch?
e.g. mips/mipsel doesn't need floppy, right?
2. How many bootable CDs will be made?
How many of the CDs will be bootable?
On i386 we had different boot mechanisms and kernels on different
CDs. To me it looks like we will only have one kernel version
2.4.x. What about optimized kernels and smp?
3. Will we make different flavours of bootfloppies?
It was suggested that we build sets without language chooser.
I think it would be good to have debian-installer make ready to use
images for all its TYPEs. debian-cd should then only manage the
distribution of packages onto multiple CDs and use debian-installer to
make a CD bootable.
That would mean debian-installer needs some hooks into which debian-cd
can put its own stuff.
Alternatively debian-cd handles all the make bootable stuff too and
then debian-installer should use debian-cd for all cdrom falvours. But
debian-cd is harder to setup just to create a netinstall cd or testing
images so I'm against that.
> 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.