On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 01:17 PM, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 04:47:33AM -1000, cehardin@... wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 01:11 PM, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
>>> I'm thinking about compiling it all for Sparc. How hard do you think
>>> would be?
>> No idea, the source will be available via CVS soon so you're welcome to
>> give it a shot.
> Good! :-)
> Then I'll put up a sparc linux here.
> Anything special I need to build it? Will Debian 2.2 or Debian 3.0
Well, the source code is not ready to be put in cvs yet. We're talking
about a huge amount of sourcecode and I want to make sure it's decent
before committing it. As fars as building it, I think you need a
glibc2.2, maybe a glibc2.1 system, I don't know debian, so I can't tell
you what version number would be adequate. Please tell me which Debian
would fulfill the above requirement.
I plan to use scripts to build it, hopefully these scripts will properly
autodetect the port and adjust accordingly. I do know that
cross-compiling would be very difficult if no timpossible (iE: building
a sparc system on x86) so you'll have to build the port on that
BTW, the source code will probably run anout 1GB, So this may turn out
to be unmanageable under cvs. (If for no other reason I probably
couldn't get a decent upload with my slow upstream cable modem)
>>> Another idea is to make debian packages of it all.
>>> Then you could make a base debian install (40 megs or something),
>>> then "apt-get install gnustep".
>> Simply GNUstep has already took off as a distro of it's own, completely
>> from scratch (Linux from scratch actually :-) )
>> so it's too late for that direction.
> Might be for the best, if you (I almost feel like writing "we" :-)
> want to keep it "simply GNUstep".
I actually plan on using RPMs, but I want to hide that from the normal
user, these RPMs will not be compatible with RPMs from RedHat, so I
don't want to confuse the user, I mainly plan to use RPMs for
auto-updating. Why RPMs and not .deb? Honestly it's because I've never
used a debian system so I'm not familiar with it. It's not too late to
change though, so if you can convince me that .deb is better (along with
online resources for building the packages) I could very well switch.
Just keep in mind that the user will have little or none interaction
woth the package system,
>> when the source is available, a simple script will (hopefully) work for
>> a long, long time from fresh source code and out will pop iso images of
>> the distro
> Very good!
> Indeed... then there is really no need for the superior debian
> packaging. It might be the best binary package system, but
> a binary package system is not necessary.
Binary is not only necessary, it's essential for a easy to use desktop
system. Remember that source code spits out an Installation CD iso
image, it's is not meant for the normal user.