Re: Hi, and embedded routers
+++ David N. Welton [04-07-22 10:51 +0200]:
> Wookey wrote:
> >+++ David N. Welton [04-07-12 12:50 +0200]:
>
> Some opinions that are starting to gel in my mind after having looked
> around are:
>
> *) OE is really fiddly. It's got too many options and overrides and
> schemes to do things. It's got its own packaging system and a bunch of
> other stuff.
This is true. Although it may be that all this stuff is actually necessary to
deal with all the problems of cross-compiling 'everything'. But it certainly
is heavy going to start with.
> *) Also, OE just grabs esentially random collections of packages.
> Debian, OTOH, has nice groupings of packages that are pretty well taken
> care of and, hopefully, integrated with one another. This integration
> is valuable.
That's certainly my feeling. I _hope_ that the consistency of Debian
packages can make the build system a lot simpler, but this is by no means a
certainty.
> *) .debs and the debian source package format aren't really ideal for
> embedded work. I'm working on a pretty large (space requirements)
> embedded system, and even that doesn't take too long to build. Going
> through .debs starts to feel like a hack. The source format doesn't
> work as well as it could because the diffs are all bundled up together,
> rather than in patch sets.
Are you saying that you don't want packages at all - just a big rootfs? I
think the modularisation of packages is still useful for embedded work.
Generally using ipkg is more suitable than dpkg, but the exact form of the
packages is not critical.
more later...
Wookey
--
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/
Reply to: