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

Re: Working Emdebian build environment

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:17:21PM +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote:
> This is set of about 40 emdebianized packages, scratchbox-based
> development environment and a couple of working root filesystems for
> Nokia 770 device. It's far from perfect but it works.

That's quite modest of you - now we (emdebian) have a a working
emdebian roofts, which will hopefully attract more developers,
as there is something to actually play with.

> This implementation uses scratchbox as a cross-compilation environment. It
> includes modified scratchbox, 

You didn't have patches for these modifications? is there other changes
than just adding emdebian tools? Ie is Philippes emdebian devkit usable
with these?

> 5. TODO list
> ------------
>      o uclibc builds (arm and i386)

This needs a automatic build-dependency sorting tool, which takes in
account a) tools provided by sbox b) arch:all deb packages, that can 
be ignored. This is something I've wanted to do for a while from now,
but didn't have time to get it finished yet.. 

>      o build system

This is the same as above or..? using Debian's official buildd 
architecture here might be a bit too heavyweight.

>      o cleanup rootimage scripts

Or modify debootstrap/cdebootstrap more usable for creating emdebian
rootimages. With the chroot wrapper in sbox 1.0.2 it is possible
debootstrap sarge atleast. However, it's a lot slower than the
current "unpack all, configure and fire" approach of make_rootimage

>      o upgrade packages to upstrim(testing?) versions.

This the question that needs most thinking. To become accepted part
of debian instead of prodigy fork, emdebian should be buildable
from debian source packages available from ftp.debian.org. However,
it might be that many debian developers who don't do embedded 
development, might not be very accepting of the idea of a 
separate emdebian/ dir in their packages.

>      o implement lintian check for emdebian packages

linda is probably easier to extend.

Reply to: