Re: Just a thought, and a few questions
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 03:13:28PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Colin is right of course. I confused lib-di and di-utils :-(
> It also has the advantage that a lot of components already declare a
> dependency on d-i-utils.
>
> That is also the one thing I'm not quite sure about though. If we do this
> structurally, we'll basically end up needing to add a dependency on
> di-utils to every udeb.
No, di-utils is already considered as the equivalent of Essential.
Plenty of stuff already uses it without a dependency (although there are
a number of dependencies anyway due to versioning).
> However, if we add it to rootskel we would not need to do that as rootkel
> can just be expected to be "there" for any D-I environment.
di-utils has just the same status as rootskel in that regard.
> Especially for a really basic function library providing logging
> functions, that seems quite appropriate.
Please don't put code libraries in rootskel. rootskel's job is to bring
the system up; it doesn't provide library facilities for other udebs.
Joey put effort a couple of years back into trimming rootskel down back
to the skeleton it should be, moving things to various other places
including di-utils.
> Note that log-output is somewhat different from this as it is a separate
> utility, not a function library.
True, though it has a similar purpose.
> A better comparison would be chroot-setup.sh, which is used by e.g.
> in-target, but can also be sourced directly by scripts in udebs.
... which is in di-utils and belongs there, just as this would.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: