Re: foreign rootfs without root priviliges with multistrap, fakeroot, fakechroot and qemu user emulation
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:20:26PM +0200, Marcus Osdoba wrote:
> Hi Johannes, I have started a similar script with the goal to create
> a Debian rootfs tarball, ubimage and ext2image with some basic
> pre-configuration:
> http://gitorious.org/dockstar/emdebian-multistrap
> and announced it here as "multistrapwrapper".
Sorry, must have missed that - back then I wasn't reading this list.
> At the beginning I used standard shell syntax, too:
> http://gitorious.org/dockstar/emdebian-multistrap/trees/v0.1
> The first task was a Debian based NAS-software for my seagate
> dockstar (kirkwood) with readonly ability. The configuration of the
> armel rootfs is done on the "build" host (amd64 in my case).
I have the seagate goflex net which is the same but has two SATA ports
and only one USB - my script builds for that thing too. great hardware!
> More or less, my Makefile project serves exactly the same purpose than
> your single-script, but provides a bit more flexibility - currently
> I'm working on a rootfs for powerpc on my Wii.
I think it serves a similar purpose. Similar in the way that in the end
it produces a debian rootfs just as mine does but different in the "bit
more flexibility" that your have which indeed is quite a big deal of
additional features (kudos for making all that work).
The thing is, that I wanted my script small and simple: put
multistrap.conf, some static files and some hooks in, get tarball out. I
dont really need much more. Specifically I dont need the ability to set
proxies, create local debian repos with reprepo, test everything in qemu
system emluation, build myself a new kernel or create a squashfs or
ubifs image. That your script can do all that is great but it really
goes way beyond what I want to do.
> >Suggestions very welcome!
> I have "invented" a very (very!) similar approach compared to your skript.
> I dont't like to invent things twice. Do you see some chance of
> co-operation or even merging both together?
I dont think there is much to invent in terms of my script because it's
only about 100 lines and if I would loose it I would be able to recreate
it without too much trouble. So in my opinion that script I wrote is
nothing that could be "reinvented" because of it's simplicity. It just
calls multistrap, copies some files, calls `dpkg --configure -a` and
then executes some hooks.
I sincerely hope that my opinion (that I prefer simplicity over many
features) is not based on some stupid NIH syndrome of mine (i'm with you
in not liking to invent things twice) but what you do is really so much
more than what I consider sane (compiling your own kernel, setting up
qemu for testing, creating local debian repository, ...). Is there a
point of discussing why you see that such a script should do those
things? You probably have your reasons, no? But maybe it's also me who's
weird because there for example exists a script called "install.sh" for
debian on the openmoko gta01/freerunner which I dont like for similar
reasons because this script also incorporates mechanisms to partition
and format my SD card or configures uboot - and you could also get me
started for ubuntu's rootstock script.
Hopefully nobody felt offended - how would other people on this list
tackle the problem?
cheers, josch
Reply to: