emsandbox and packages.conf
Hello,
I tried this method to build my rootfs:
1) I edited the file packages.conf to update the following variables:
INCLUDE=locales,openssh-server,screen,udev,wpasupplicant,wireless-tools
# MIRROR overrides the default emsandbox mirror. This repository will
# will be set in /etc/apt/sources.list and will also be used by
# debootstrap to obtain all packages for the tarball unless
# PROXY is also set.
# DEFAULT: http://www.emdebian.org/crush/
MIRROR=http://www.emdebian.org/grip/
2) I launched emsandbox and I noticed that INCLUDE was taken into
account whereas MIRROR still pointed to crush.
I'm wondering if this behavior is normal. If it is, this does not
matter. I can indeed use my own repository.
-
Fabien
fabien@samsung-debian:~$ sudo emsandbox -a arm -m arm -v pxa create
[sudo] password for fabien:
Using '/home/fabien/emdebian/' as the Emdebian working directory.
Creating an embootstrap arm chroot
Using arm:pxa
Building arm chroot on i386 to install arm packages.
Checking for a user writeable tree in /home/fabien/emdebian/pbuilder/build
-> running debootstrap
-> cross detected, using foreign.
DEBOOTSTRAP_DIR=/usr/share/debootstrap/ debootstrap
--include=locales,openssh-server,screen,udev,wpasupplicant,wireless-tools
--verbose --foreign --arch arm unstable
/home/fabien/emdebian/pbuilder/build http://www.emdebian.org/crush/
/usr/share/emdebian-tools/emdebian.crossd
I: Retrieving Release
I: Retrieving Packages
I: Validating Packages
I: Resolving dependencies of required packages...
I: Resolving dependencies of base packages...
I: Found additional required dependencies: libtextwrap1 lzma
I: Found additional base dependencies: dhcp3-common e2fslibs e2fsprogs
libblkid1 libbz2-1.0 libcomerr2 libdevmapper1.02.1 libedit2 libkeyutils1
libkrb53 libpam-modules libpam-runtime libpam0g libpopt0 libselinux1
libsepol1 libss2 libssl0.9.8 libuuid1 libvolume-id0 libwrap0 lsb-base
mount ncurses-bin openssh-client passwd sed sysvinit-utils tzdata
I: Checking component main on http://www.emdebian.org/crush...
Reply to: