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

Re: Draft proposal for debian-custom

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Alex de Landgraaf wrote:

> Well, currently I've been basicly working here at debconf on the #2 from debix:
> autobuilding.

> #1 is already possible, but a bit messy (we just want to take a
> list of debian packages from one or more repositories and have them work from a
> livecd). The module-autobuilding framework is done and I've been keeping myself
> busy making various modules from packagelists,
Sounds good.  Can this package list be created out of meta package dependencies?

> The description on Morphix that is in the current CDD documentation is the
> 'default text' from the users point of view.
Yes - this was the fastest way to go in the cdd-doc.

> Morphix is modular. The base of morphix is a 30MB iso, containing the kernel,
> kernel modules and hardware detection tools. It is built from a debootstrap,
> knoppix's hwsetup/data packages and contains a range of morphix/knoppix
> scripts. It is severely slimmed down, I've been thinking of making udeb's for
> the base instead.
> ...
> Anyway, this was a short introduction from a debian perspective.
Thanks for this good overview.  I think I should update the docs according
to this because this is what we really should know about Morphix, perhaps.

> > Is this talk anywhere available.  I see many things in common to
> > Componentized Linux and hope that we could share a certain amount of work.
> Not yet (the talk), however PICAX is pretty interesting. We've actually used
> their comps.xml syntax for our autobuild templates. The main feature of CL is
> the combining of packages into components that can in turn depend on each
> other.
While I absolutely not know anything about PICAX I wonder whether we could
use this technique for CDD.  At least the XML database feature to build a
package list came to my mind formerly which has a great potential, UMHO.
Any opinions?

Kind regards


Reply to: