Re: [musl] Re: [dev] [ANN] sabotage 2011-04-09, a musl+busybox based distribution

My thoughts after testing it a bit.

* why gcc3? i would love to see gcc4.6 with Go support
* i dont see the difference between a ports system and what slpm does
  - the difference between a package system and a build system is that
    the package system registers what every package installs. you can just
    remove the /var/cache/pacman and convert an arch distro into a
suckless system?
    ---imho no
* many of the packages included in this distro suck.. in fact. GNU
software sucks. you only have to check the sourcecode of 'true'
program.. so i would love if we could just get a base
system without libtool, autofoo, ncurses and other broken shit.. but
this is obviously harder if you want to use X11 and most common
programs.. so we can probably move this task as a 2nd step.

* the build system is quite simple, but it doesnt works for me:

src/fcntl/openat.c: In function `openat':
src/fcntl/openat.c:19: internal compiler error: in print_reg, at
./config/i386/i386.c:7137
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:0: Warning: end of file not at end of a line; newline
inserted
{standard input}:22: Error: bad register name `%'
make: *** [src/fcntl/openat.o] Error 1

On 04/12/11 11:23, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> first of all, nice work Christian!
>
> On 12 April 2011 00:45, pancake<pancake_AT_youterm.com> wrote:
>> Slpm is probably much simpler than any ports system out there. It still needs some love..But it works for my use cases.
>>
>> I recommend you to take a look on it. :)
>>
>> I already packaged musl, tcc and other stuff in slpm
> I don't see the point in a package _manager_ at all.
>
> What I do see is to have something like ports or build scripts that
> build/bootstrap the system and create binaries for future updating
> purposes (or security fixes). My personal choice/preference for this
> would be a ports system based on mk files -- some volunteers
> contributed early steps in this direction already.
>
> Ideally the system would be kept up to date using rsync or just git
> pull, that's what I intend with sta.li (once I have more extra time).
>
> Kind regards,
> Anselm
>
Received on Tue Apr 12 2011 - 19:26:53 CEST