Re: [dev] How about sta.li ?

On 1 August 2010 08:43, pancake <pancake_AT_youterm.com> wrote:
> I want to say that in latest glibc (see archlinux) many 9base programs cant
> be executed because of being static.
>
> Compiling bionic would be great but I was unAble to workaround their
> makefiles to do it without the android sdk.
>
> Glibc must be avoided as much as possible. Anybody working w bionic here?
>
> I wrote slpm which can be used as template for binary and src packages and
> it supports static compilation. A repo of bins for it can be good. Packages
> aré pretty similar to slackware (mere tarballs)
>
> I know that stali aims to not have package system, but. Imho slpm can be a
> good start to generate chroots or manage binary packages in a simple way. It
> needs more work coz bindeps are not supported, etc..
>
> So imho binpkgs for stali should just be tarballs u uncompress or you
> remove. But pkgsystem is a complex topic because many progrMs require
> postinstall scripts and others which really suck by nature and I would love
> to erradicate all this innecesary complexity or just avoid using them.

What I have in mind for the base system is whether to clone it from hg
or to rsync it. Configuration files under version control /rsync
master that need local editing would be provided in a suckless-like
fashion with the .def extension, eg /etc/fstab.def, /etc/passwd.def.
Using this approach the updates don't affect the existing
configuration files, and the user can upgrade/merge them when it is
appropriate or necessary.

-Anselm
Received on Sun Aug 01 2010 - 20:29:57 CEST