RPM Loader Script - V0.1

[Ralph Stickley]

--- Adi Linden <adi@adis.on.ca> wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> > > Here's what I am doing. I'd like PeeWeeLinux to become a platform that
> Unless you need to include additional libs that are purposely left out of
> PWL.
> 
oops, left those out too:-)
...one thing I was thinking would be helpful..search the *.list files
in the packages directory to find a specific file.  If that file is found,
then I can prompt the user to include the package/file in their configuration.

(OR include the package/file in the new "package-dep.tar" ?? it would be 
duplicated, but it doesn't affect the extract process..)

Now, if it is a completely new file, not part of any pwl packages, I can
do a locate on their hard drive and copy it. OR is there an RPM that 
contains the library files ? Hmmmmm...

Again, so far I'm only concerning myself with binaries....

> But all PeeWeeLinux packages should be build from source tar balls or
> source rpms, I think. None of the copying from a running system or a
> binary rpm.
> 
that would be optimial...but my current process
pwl_rpmloader
package
is a quick way to build a package to run and test.  Optimize them after
they are working...

> 
> I think the key to that happening is to have a well defined and documented
> process of how to create a PeeWeeLinux package.
> 

The best documentation is if we can script it "generically".  In order
to script a "rebuild" of packages xyz, all I need is a patch file, maybe
a short xyz script that I can run...

Then to build a package, the package maker must:
1. create a patch file
2. create a make_pkg file that handles all the uniqueness for the package.

I'd have to see a patch and make_pkg to integrate it, since I've never 
actually compiled anything :-)

> So as far as creating packages is concerned this has become a rather
> urgent thing to be decided on. Since the build process for packages should
> be reproduceable. So here is what needs to be done:
> 
> Raw Sources           --->  PeeWeeLinux Sources
> PeeWeeLinux Sources   --->  PeeWeeLinux Binaries
> PeeWeeLinux Binaries  --->  PeeWeeLinux Packages
Nearly done on the last step!

> 
> 1. What do we use for Raw sources?
>   a. Source tarballs
>      We can extract the tarballs from Redhat source rpms where
>      source rpms exist.
>   b. Redhat RPMS
>      Where source rpms don't exist we have to create either
>      Redhat RPMS or Source RPMS first
> 
Yes.

> 2. Do we create and keep PeeWeeLinux sources (already patched
>    and ready to compile?). Or do we keep the original sources
>    and apply PeeWeeLinux patches?
> 

I think I'd go for the PeeWeeLinux patches.  That way, when the
original is upgraded, the patch *Might* work on the upgarde, otherwise,
just modify the patch a little...

> 3. Do we create PeeWeeLinux tar packages or PeeWeeLinux rpms
>    (both binaries)?
> 

I still like the tar files, unless you can figure out how to make 
the rpms re-locatable. (or use /tmp/pwl_tmp for all rpms or something).

> > The key here is that this *painful process* need only be done once...
> 
> That's correct. But what we use to start with and what it results in
> should be well defined. I looked at the Linux Router Project and I thought
> making LPR packages is a mess. I don't want the same for PeeWeeLinux.
>
yep, I never got into lrp because of it's configuration stuff...too much
to read!
 
> The easier the process is to follow the more likely people will contribute
> a complete set of sources/patches/binaries for PeeWeeLinux...
> 
> > Is it time to start to ask for help / Announce Pee Wee to a 
> > bunch of news groups /mailing lists ?? (Pee Wee Comes out of the closet!)
> 
> It's still far from a plug-and-play solution. I think I'd rather stick to
> announcing updates on freshmeat for now.
> 
Oh...I haven't been checking freshmeat myself ...

> > Maybe after I integrate the package stuff and the ram disk stuff...and
> > we get a few projects working...of course, we can always come up with 
> > more features...We need a marketing guy to say STOP, SHIP it NOW!:-)
> > 
> > "Software programs are never finished...only abandoned"
> 
> I think it'll be never finished. But the framework needs to be
> established.
> 

we're getting close...just need to close the loop on this package thing...
handle a few more devices...hmmmm...well, we are closer than we were last week!

Later,
Ralph

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------
See the list archives at http://adis.on.ca/archives/
See the PWL homepage at  http://embedded.adis.on.ca
---------------------------------------------------