Hi, On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:10:14PM +0100, Bohdan Milar wrote: > Dear MiNTers, > > As I wrote earlier, here is my report about segmenting the KGMD into > original parts. I separated sources into different directories and > added man-pages to the bin packages. I also moved the binaries inside > the package to (I hope) correct fhs folders (so no /usr/etc, > usr/ucb). I am going to build two (bin+src if available) rpm packages > from each KGMD package (e.g. free, GNU-time, ...). So, for example, Good luck but you won't get far with that approach. The sources that come with KGMD are mostly polluted with patches which aren't necessary any longer. A lot of stuff will not even compile. I would rather make dummy rpms from the compiled binaries and distribute the original sources and patches into /usr/share/doc/[PACKAGENAME] as part of the documentation. There is really no point in trying to compile these completely outdated programs. Even if they compile, I doubt that they will still run when linked against a recent MiNTLib. And even if they do run, they are very likely to malfunction because of changes in the libc. I really appreciate your effort to make Sparemint something like a "real" distribution. But working on KGMD sources and patches is really a waste of time in 2001; it won't get you anywhere. It is ok to distribute the KGMD binaries that don't have a working Sparemint equivalent but if you want to provide an update for these binaries, there is more to do than just try to recompile the stuff. If it was that easy, somebody else would have done it. If you want updates, you really have to restart from scratch. A lot of stuff now compiles and works without any changes, and the missing packages are mostly not trivial to get working. > KGMD package inetd looks like this on my harddisk: > /.../inetd-01/usr/sbin/inetd > /.../inetd-01/usr/share/man/man8/inetd.8.gz > The following text is a list of the original packages with my > comments. Generally I would like to know your comments to my > comments. And in definite terms: > > - In the packages with a SpareMiNT equivalent, are the file present > in KGMD and missing in SpareMiNT (mkfifo, mknod) really important? mkfifo and mknod never worked, they were pure fake. Omit them, so that nobody gets fooled into thinking that they could be used. The same applies to mount. > - Are the files which are in a collision with a file of the same name > but from another packages (typically csize and fmt) really the same? Huh? What do you mean exactly? csize is obsolete, package mintbin provides all necessary stuff. > - Are the files listed in "Compiler - files missing in SpareMiNT" > necessary for programmers? (Thus shall I include them to OSMD?) Maybe somebody can answer the question if you care to reveal /which/ files are listed there... > - Are there more complete (incl. man pages, sources, ...) or newer > versions of the KGMD parts which are not in SpareMiNT? (I know about > virtual consoles for example) Where can I find them? No idea. > - Any ideas about software neither in KGMD nor in SpareMiNT but (yet > ported for MiNT) should be included in a new distribution (adduser, > fetchmail)? adduser should be included in shadow-utils. > - Should I use the old (KGMD) init-1.4.1 or the new (SpareMint's) > mintinit? (there were problems to force virtual console running with > anything else than init.prg from init-1.4.1) mintinit (Sparemint) is not really working. Furthermore there are no initscripts for SysV init available. You will have to stick with init-1.4.1. > - I found some KGMD packages (namely init and MiNT-Tols) not very > logical in their structure (it is different than their Linux > equivalents). In other cases single files from KGMD are on Linux This is because Linux is not a synonym for Unix in general. For example the init that comes with KGMD is based on BSD init which differs very much from SysV init (the one used for Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, ...). As for the complete init suite of KGMD you should only modify the init scripts but you should not change their location. Otherwise you will prevent a smooth update to a future SysV compatible init suite. > grouped in a package (e.g. rsh, rlogin, rcp). So I suggest to > reorganize them at the end of the text. Are my proposals correct? Any > other proposals? You can safely group all r-tools in one package so that reasonable users can get rid of that rubbish with just one command. ;-) Most Sparemint packages are built from Redhat packages. It therefore makes sense to pack your binaries alike as this will simplify an update, once the corresponding Redhat package has been ported to MiNT. Silly example: Package inetd together with init and people will hate you once either inetd or init is available as a real rpm because they will be forced to manually rescue half of your package. One word to Sparemint vs. Redhat: Some people have asked me if it is ok to port SuSE packages for Sparemint, instead of Redhat (unfortunately neither the Redhat nor the SuSE package ever showed up on Sparemint ...). I don't have any objections against SuSE, as a Linux distribution I even like it a lot more than Redhat. But IMHO SuSE source rpms are painful to build (I hope Andreas does not read this ...). Even on Linux some of them won't compile at all (even if SuSE insists on the contrary), some have a lot of actually unnecessary dependencies, some will not build correctly resp. misbehave if you build them yourself. If you need a starting point for new Sparemint rpms better go to Redhat's than SuSE's because Redhat generally make much more effort to ensure that their packages will build and work on a wide range of systems. Ciao Guido
Attachment:
pgpLbaSY6WUZs.pgp
Description: PGP signature