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

Re: Embedded Debian (was: compaq iPaq)

Chris Rutter wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:14:24 Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > For the most part, I think there is enough flexibility within Debian to
> > pick and choose the smallest tools that will do the job from among the
> > binary packages.  Where Debian currently falls short, we can create -tiny
> > versions of packages as needed.  Most useful optimizations that can be
> > done at compile time can also be used to create binary packages to save
> > people the time and bother of compiling it themselves.
> Yes; I have an idea for a solution to the problem:
>   * For each package, logically create another two packages (although there
>     could be many categories): `-small' and `-tiny'.
>   * Write a script that will take a binary package and, based on guesses,
>     squeeze it down to size; e.g. squeezing binaries, removing documentation,
>     removing bash or Perl scripts (depending on whether the target supports
>     bash and perl), header files, etc.
>   * Define a mechanism so that a binary package can contain a file in
>     `DEBIAN/', called (say) `squeeze-small' and `squeeze-tiny', overriding
>     the script's guesses, and specifying more exactly how to squeeze the
>     package to its corresponding smaller version.
>   * Define a mechanism so that a source package can contain a file which
>     specifies a list of `small' options (e.g. portions of glibc to compile
>     in) which can be defined to create a squeezed package in one form.
>     (I think few packages would need these.)
>   * Write a tool analagous to the task selector to build these `small'
>     packages and create filesystem images out of them.
>   * Package up newlib and friends and make them provide libc6. :-)
> c.

hmm, im not sure its practical to create extra binary packages, wouldnt
it be more effective to exclude files from regular packages as its

It could use an external script like you mention in your second point.

You could have some sort of wrapper around dpkg to do it, would be
easier than creating new tools, new packages.


Reply to: