Re: [Helidelinux-devel] Package manager
Status: Abandoned
Brought to you by:
rveen
From: Bennett T. <be...@ra...> - 2004-03-16 21:24:46
|
2004-03-16T20:46:27 Hui Zhou: > I am thinking that some dependency such as bash and libc are just > so common, is it worth listing them at all. This gets back to a statement I made earlier: I, _myself_, and completely uninterested in manually-created or manually-maintained dependancy data. It's routinely wrong, in my experience. Heuristic data won't completely correct in every way, but I think it'll be more useful than hand-maintained data. So I'm not building any support for manual dependancy assertion or checking, only whatever can be completely automated. I'm also not interested in ad-hoc hacks, like e.g. automatically computing build-depends with strace then pruning some arbitrarily-defined "base package list" out of it. > Here is an idea: always bundle some essential packages together > and offer as a base system, thus many packages' dependency may > automatically be solved. Red Hat does that. A minimal Red Hat base system is something over 100MB these days. My minimal system is a kernel+Busybox, lilo can be removed after it's been run, or could be run from a rescue disk. My vmlinuz-2.4.25 is 1.2MB, Busybox is 675KB, so my base system is under 2MB. Of course it's not a development system. But some of my bpm packages, perhaps even most, would (I suspect) build Ok without bash installed, using the ash from Busybox. > One may prepare a few different flavored base packages so user > have choices. The base packages also can't be uninstalled but > upgraded. Other distros have taken more or less that approach; I'm still enraptured by the simplicity of "a system can be as little as a kernel + Busybox, plus any other bits you want, pick and choose". Perhaps I'll get over it:-). -Bennett |