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

Re: Baked



On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:19:51 +1000
Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> wrote:

> Emdebian Baked.
> 
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-embedded/2010/04/msg00048.html
> 
> My comments about Emdebian Baked.
> 
> > 3. Advanced users needing ultra small and non-upgradable: Baked.
> >   
> I don't think that "ultra small" necessarily implies Baked, though it
> may be that may applications do require ultra small.

OK. I was working along the lines that smaller would make it easier to
ensure that the system is properly configured.
 
> I think Baked should be defined as a static debian filesystem with some
> user customisations.  It is em/debian  in the sense that it is mostly
> built from debian sources/packages, and the filesystem layout is debian,
> and system scripts are debian, etc.  It's just that the runtime features
> of dpkg/apt are not required.

... or deployed. At this stage, I've no idea how difficult it will be
to statically replicate the results of running dpkg --configure -a for
a given package set. I think this will become a lot clearer with
experimentation and once the Squeeze release freeze starts.

> > e.g. busybox-crush is a full-fat busybox configuration that tries to be
> > compatible with most of Debian. busybox-baked could be much smaller
> > with all the long-options support turned off and various other tweaks
> > to make the final busybox binary smaller. (IIRC busybox-crush is about
> > 500kb.)
> >   
> Again, this assumes Baked = Ultra Small.  I don't think this is the case.

Busybox itself doesn't use maintainer scripts - a full-fat busybox
package for Baked could come from Emdebian Crush without further
changes. 

> Some time ago, Crush was defined as the variant for ultra small.  Is
> that not the case now ??

Well, a Baked system would be slightly smaller than the equivalent
Crush system. It's only a few Mb but it can matter when considering
ultra-small. It's more a way of designating systems to be clear on what
can and cannot be expected.

> Does it makes sense to have the following ??
>     Emdebian Grip (apt)
>     Emdebian Grip-Baked (static / non-debian-upgradeable)
>     Emdebian Crush (apt)
>     Emdebian Crush-Baked (static / non-debian-upgradeable)

Yes. I'll work that into the eventual webpage.
 
> > Emdebian wouldn't actually provide packages necessarily - once we get
> > down to this level of configuration, there really isn't a sensible
> > default that Emdebian can provide.
> >   
> True for ultra-small.  I think a fat busybox is ok to provide and
> probably suitable for most embedded systems.

busybox-crush - once I've ironed out a few problems and uploaded the
new version - will be available in the http://www.emdebian.org/crush
repository as a full-fat bootable busybox configuration to replace the
crippled default one from Debian Installer.

> > One extra step for Baked would be that your final multistrap hook could
> > forcibly remove dpkg and apt as well as the /var/lib/dpkg/ contents.
> > Multistrap won't be able to do this for you (neither will debootstrap)
> > because apt cannot be persuaded not to install itself. :-) When I say
> > remove, it would be 'rm -rf /paths/to/dpkg/files' not 'dpkg -P' -
> > leaving the system theoretically setup with dpkg but without dpkg or
> > dpkg status files. This would gain several Mb of free space which could
> > be advantageous for such a system.
> >   
> Yep.  Could use apt or dpkg to obtain a list of the all the files in the
> packages, then rm all those files.

... or (as mentioned later in the thread) use 'mv' to put them
somewhere safe.

This can be simulated with the current multistrap - for a foreign
architecture. Possibly compare a native vs foreign and work out the
desired static config from there.

> Sounds sensible.  Users could delete these manually in the the
> multistrap hook, or post multistrap.

Yes. multistrap does need some changes, e.g. to allow this kind of
behaviour in native mode instead of assuming that it's OK to go and do
'dpkg --configure -a' after unpacking. Also, I think a lot of Baked
users will not want a full size Debian base system (all packages with
Priority: required) and this support is pending in multistrap.
 
> > Emdebian Baked would NOT be expected to support a large number of
> > packages per system - typical expectations are one or maybe two dozen
> > packages at absolute most, including the kernel.
> >   
> Why not ??
> To me, it's just a way to create a static Emdebian filesystem and using
> a pre-seeded mechanism to configure some/all settings.

I was being pessimistic about the complexity of the static
configuration. It may be easier than I expect, in which case relatively
large package sets may work quite well. Any Baked installation capable
of, say, running an X server would probably break in nasty ways. Simon
has also hinted that various plugin methods could break spectacularly -
I think he was referring to python mainly.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpcGexNQORUj.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: