RPM Loader Script - V0.1

[Adi Linden]

Hi Ralph,

> > The problem with using binary rpms is that they might require PAM and/or
> > ncurses...
> >
> 
> awww..geeze, hadn't though of that...well, this might work for *Some* rpms...
> If you get a chance to run:
> ./scripts/pwl_rpmload EXE fvwm2
> 
> maybe you could tell me what needs to be done here (or script it :-))
> to build all the files I need.  I was going to install the package
> tomorrow and see if it works (slow, painful process for me).

Here's what I am doing. I'd like PeeWeeLinux to become a platform that can
be build entirely from sources. My goal would be a distibution where you
can run a single script to build all packages from sources.

Still the question is if PeeWeeLinux should be based on Redhat source RPMS
or generic tar balls and patches of packes.

Until then I am building packages more for my own consumption. I guess how
you build them shouldn't matter. The way I did the original packages was
to simply copy libs and binaries from my running Redhat systems
directories into the Embedded_Build/mnt directory. The I wrote my own
startup scripts which were much less complex than what RedHat has done.

> > You do 'ldd binary_name' or 'ldd lib_name'. That will result in a bunch of
> > libs required for those libs and binaries to function. The 'file' command
> > will tell you if the libs or binaries are stripped. The stripping can be
> > done with 'objcopy' or 'strip'...
> > 
> 
> Hmmmm...I got statically linked on a few of them...I think this is 
> going to be a manual process for a while. I'll build the depends file, 
> if you can think of any other automation I can add, let me know..
> PWL Package building...job security for linux hackers!

Makes them pretty big! Your X is 16M? Yup, it's a painstaking manual
process. Scripting would be a bit of a pain since you would need a custom
script for each package. It makes reproducing the package easier. But
then, that why I did PWL in the very beginning, so I didn't have to do the
manual prosess of selecting and stripping executables and checking for
dependencies every single time I build a project.

PeeWeeLinux has met it's original goal of why I build it. I still think
that it's worthwhile to develop it further by automating the build from
sources once the original build has been done. That would also make it
possible to establish guidelines for contributed packages and what's
expected from them....

> > > To Do: load the source rpm, install it, copy the source files
> > > and compile everything.  Then copy the binaries from the SRC 
> > > directory into the pkg.files directory.....
> > 
> > Yup, that would be the best way of doing it. Or... download the original
> > sources and compile from scratch. Then make a build script and a patch
> > file... Otherwise it might get messy if we build some packages from rpm
> > and others from tar...
> > 
> Hey, if you have a link to each of the source files...we can ftp them
> over instead of using the RH CD...not bad...I guess RH does some 
> changes from the originals, not sure of other advantages of ftp vs RH RPM...

The changes Redhat did to the Redhat RPMS are in the form of patches.
Sooo, it's easy to build whatever you like from the source rpm because the
original tar ball is still there (plus a number patches, some redhat some
not).

I guess one way to build packages would be to take the source rpm and
extract the original tarball and non-redhat specific patches... Then keep
these as the PWL sources and build our packages from the tar files...

Or use rpm and build redhat rpms for every package that's not part of
RedHat (elvis-tiny, busybox, tinylogin, to name a few that instantly come
to mind)

The nice thin about Redhat rpms is they compile as is. With orignal tar
balls quite often they have to be 'fixed' before they will compile....

> Anyhow, I guess this is the "idiots tool for package building" (just 
> my speed :-) your packages are still the best! But, Hey, if you 
> have 128MB flash disk...

Almost fit a Gnome workstation on that sucker... Just have to rmember not
to use swap space on flash then :) 

BTW, someone asked me that question... seriously! If 32MB of RAM isn't
enough, couldn't we use a 64MB flash drive and make a 32MB swap partition?
Interesting thought, eh...?  Ouch... :)

TTYL,
Adi

---------------------------------------------------
See the list archives at http://adis.on.ca/archives/
See the PWL homepage at  http://embedded.adis.on.ca
---------------------------------------------------