Turnbull China Bikeride/Turnbull China Bikeride - Disc 2.iso/BARNET/ARMLINUX/MAIL/9804/000121_owner-linux-arm…r.rutgers.edu _Tue Apr 21 12:05:54 1998.msg

Internet Message Format | 1998-05-13 | 9KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from orava.funet.fi (orava.funet.fi [128.214.248.46])
    by odie.barnet.ac.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA23271
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:05:53 +0100
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu ([128.6.190.2]:28787 "EHLO vger.rutgers.edu" ident: "root") by orava.funet.fi with ESMTP id <390843-15032>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:04:10 +0300
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <970798-319>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 06:56:00 -0400
Received: from lenzie.cent.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.30.11]:39442 "EHLO lenzie.cent.gla.ac.uk" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE") by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id <970886-319>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 06:52:38 -0400
Received: from localhost (9606585c@localhost)
    by lenzie.cent.gla.ac.uk (8.8.4/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA00881;
    Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:31:40 +0100 (BST)
Date:     Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:31:35 +0100 (BST)
From: James Craig <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
To: Russell King - ARM Linux Admin <[e-mail]>
cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Installing on an 4 MB A5000
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Orcpt: rfc822;[e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: [e-mail]
Status: RO

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Russell King - ARM Linux Admin wrote:

> James Craig writes:
> > Yep, I know about this problem. It's a bit of a problem (understatement of
> > the century) but we're more likely to be able to manage when the installer
> > is just a tar+gunzip, instead of some weird format that stores huge heaps
> > of completely useless info.
>
> That's where you're wrong.  You're talking about tar + gunzip + sh + installer.
> With RedHat, you've just got the installer and cpio.  There's nothing more
> to it.
Try ps -ax. I wish it were that simple. RH tends to run a lot of other
junk too. I admit, slackware uses a lot more seperate processes though.
> > The slackware packages include the scripts too - If you look closely at a
> > slackware package, it contains a install/script file usually which handles
> > installation. Most slackware packages uninstall fairly cleanly too. The
> > other *BIG*, in fact *HUGE* advantage is that you can get away with no
> > installer whatsoever. The good old fashioned sash shell (stand-alone
> > shell) includes tar in it - and compiles perfectly for the ARM leaving
> > bucketloads of RAM free even on a 4M machine. You can just use it's
> > built-in tar command to unpack the slackware packages - it works great.
>
> And if you want to teach Joe Bloggs how to use it, then go ahead.  But that's
> not the end of it - it's all well untaring, but what about these installation
> scripts you mentioned.  You have mentioned that you can unpack the sources,
> but what about the next stage.
The total effort required to run the scripts is:
cd /mnt
.. install/install
Doesn't seem very difficult, even for Joe Bloggs. Not to forget, as I
pointed out, getting ARM Linux on a 4M machine right now is so damn
difficult, anyone even attempting it is probably going to manage that,
even if I have to write a HOWTO on it.
> > I don't really think people who are smart enough to get it to even *boot*
> > are going to have much trouble figuring out that the need to install perl
> > before they can use a perl script. Not to forget, of course, RPM is truly
> > hideous to use anyway. Trying to do anything other than one of the
> > predefined action is seriously fiddly, and you don't stand much change
> > of getting an RPM port to other OSs to let you modify packages before
> > installing them - e.g. seperating individual files out to fit them onto
> > 720K floppies.. Also - removing a package which other programs are using
> > isn't smart usually - but you need to do it to make a decent job of upgrading
> > versions on something. I'd much rather it just shut up and got on with it. :)
>
> Well then, you should just make sure you use the --nodeps option everytime.
> The dependencies are provided for people who may not realise the ramifications
> of the action that they are about to perform.

> I'd like to ask you a couple of questions at this point.  Have you tried
> creating a distribution?  Have you tried making a RedHat package?
Yes to the first. I've recompiled slackware at various points, created
slack boot disks from scratch etc. (i.e. recompiling everything that goes
on the disk, figuring out what I need on it, and putting it all together
with my own install scripts)

I've never created an RH package because I don't use RH. At all.
Whatsoever. I tried it, really didn't like it, abandoned it. I've
created debian packages in the past, although I've never actually had much
reason to use it. I know one thing - creating a slackware .tar.gz is a lot
easier than creating a RH .RPM. tar cvfz <packagename.tgz> . isn't a big
chore.

> If the answer to these questions is no, then I would suggest that you try
> this *before* commenting on it, since you're trying to talk about a subject
> that you have only half if not less of the total facts about.
I do know about doing this, in fact, I've even installed slackware on a 2
meg machine in the past. Having no RAM free is something I'm well used to,
and I have to distribute modified IRC servers and bots around QuakeNet
(www.quakenet.eu.org) where I'm an IRCop. Most of the other IRCops aren't
too hot at linux installation, so I need to package them in a way they can
*all* handle. RPM, they can't. .tar.gz causes no problems.
> You forget, I *have* tried the tar method.  I *have* tried the RPM method.
> I know what a pain the two are.  I know the problems that each one cause.
> I know the benefits of each.  I know this because I have had *experience*
> of them both.
I've tried the tar method, and looked at the RPM method for about 3 hours
getting nothing but crashes, and RPM complaining about it's databases. I
gave in at that point since there's no reason for me to use a packaging
method that excludes anyone who *isn't* using Red Hat (I've tried
installing RPM on a slackware machine, and frankly, it's a pain in the
butt.)
> As someone who has spent half a year creating the ARM Linux distribution,
> I really *KNOW* how difficult it is to create a distribution.  It is not
> a trivial matter, and without the RPM system, it would not be here today.
> I *KNOW* where the problems lie.
I congratulate you on doing as well as you have. The current distribution
seems to work extremely well on machines with more than 4 meg of RAM, and
I'm quite seriously impressed with the amount of work you've put in. We
all owe you a lot for that.
> Now, stop arguing about something that is IRRELLEVENT and discuss SENSIBLY
> THE REAL PROBLEM AT HAND - how to get AN installer to work in 4MB, not
> I DON'T LIKE REDHAT AND THATS WHY IT DOESN'T WORK.
I *have* been discussing this seriously. The bottom line is that on an
ix86, slackware can install on a 2 meg machine. (I can show an i386sx40
with 2 meg running Linux as proof if anyone doesn't believe me.) On an
ix86, RH can't install (easily) on less than an 8 meg machine. I think
it's fairly clear which one uses less RAM on the ix86 architecture. I know
the ARM memory management is a bit (OK, very) different, and the overheads
on processes are rather heavier, but I'd have to say the difference
between the two memory footprints is rather large.

In summary, the reason I think that a slackware distribution might be a
good thing (TM) are:

i) Slackware has a much smaller memory footprint on the ix86, which
implies that it *may* also have a smaller footprint on the ARM machines,
helping with the 4M problem.
ii) Slackware's packages can be installed manually more easily, and can be
modified on OSs other than Linux if the need arises. They can also be
split up and otherwise modified a little more readily than RPMs.
iii) A minimum slackware installation is rather smaller than a minimum Red
Hat installation. A slackware install including GCC can fit in about 20
meg (assuming you don't have the current rather huge kernel sources in
there). The last time I tried Red Hat (correct me if this figure is wrong,
I haven't used RH in quite some time) the smallest with that setup was
around the 80 meg mark.

> > My commiserations to your friend, losing his soul to the dark side of
> > Linux. He's fallen in with evil companions. ;)
>
> Not at all - he was going to use a tar file, until I explained RPMs to
> him.  He immediately saw the enormous advantages that a RPM gives you
> over a simple tar.gz file.
It *was* a joke, Russ, there's no need to be so irritable over it.
>

--
James Craig <[e-mail]>
            <[e-mail]>


unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [e-mail]