Re: [Dragora-users] Proposal: flexible script to create different images

[DustDFG]

On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 10:22 PM Matías Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> wrote:
>
> El 2022-05-14 17:05, Matías Fonzo escribió:
> > El 2022-05-14 10:05, DustDFG escribió:
> >> On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 6:08 AM DustDFG <dfgdust@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:18 PM Matias Fonzo <selk@dragora.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > El 2022-05-13 13:51, DustDFG escribió:
> >>> >
> >>> I also think that we can make an exception for kernel category and
> >>> not
> >>> to change it. So we will get essential category that contains
> >>> everything for the minimal system except the kernel. It is obvious
> >>> that system needs kernel for running so it isn't so necessary to
> >>> point
> >>> out it. In this case, hypothetical essential.order file will process
> >>> only packages from these two categories and it looks logical. What do
> >>> you think about it? What do you like more (subcategory or exception
> >>> for kernel category or maybe something else)?
> >
>
> We have to try to keep things simple, this is also subject to how you
> look at it.
>
> The discussion has two aspects, the build side and the part of the
> already running system, which delivers the packages, let's call it the
> binary side.
>
> If I understand correctly what you want or propose to offer from the
> build side is the essential or minimum for the system to run, instead of
> having to build all or the rest of the series.  This I assume would be
> for the purpose of wanting to have a minimal system for the purpose of
> saving time or resources on the build side.  Here we are pointedly
> referring to the final build of the system from within the temporary
> system.
>
> If you create a new series called e.g. "00-essential.order" where you
> have the essential packages annotated, you must have add or annotate the
> recipes that belong to the build software (musl, binutils, gcc, ...), as
> the system has to be adjusted to its final paths.  By this is meant
> assuming that the minimal system is built in its entirety, this leaves
> the build packages installed as well.  In this whole stage of building
> the "essential" series from this point on, it translates into time,
> build time to build and install the packages that build software, plus
> the packages required to run the system.  While it is true that you can
> later remove the build packages to leave only what is required, it is
> time consuming to want to build it.
>
> On the other hand, it would be smarter to take advantage of what we
> already have, and that is that the build tools are built at an early
> stage (stage 0), and if there is a new stage, where you aim for a small
> system as much as possible, where you offer the possibility to install
> binary packages, then I think that would be better.  It saves resources
> and time, specifically it saves this:
>
>      ./bootstrap -s0 && ./bootstrap -s1 && ./enter-chroot && qi build
> order /usr/src/qi/recipes/00-essential.order | qi build -S -p -i - 2>&1
> | tee /essential-log.txt
>
> When it could be done as:
>
>      ./bootstrap -s0 && ./bootstrap -sM
>
> By the way, the "./bootstrap -s0" instruction can be avoided, if you
> unpack a flavour offered by Darkcrusade, by unpacking one of the
> (pre-made) cross-compilers under the "OUTPUT.bootstrap" directory.
>
> Then, the "M" stage which is a challenge, a challenge in the sense that
> it contains only what is necessary for system execution, for example:
>
>      M/01-kernel
>      M/02-musl
>      M/03-busybox
>      M/04-sysvinit
>      M/05-bootscripts
>      M/06-perl (perl-cross here)
>      M/07-graft
>      M/08-lzlib
>      M/09-tarlz
>      M/10-plzip
>      M/11-qi
>      M/12-qire (and its dependencies for remote package installation)
>
> The challenge is also to have the minimum as well as the "just enough"
> configurations of what the system needs, which is intended to leave it
> running so that it can be extended, through the binary packages
> provided.
>
> (I mention or write all this for the record, in case it is done
> tomorrow).
>
> Now, from the binary side, and related to the build, if we mark those
> essential packages (not those essential to build) but those essential
> for the execution of the system, then we could offer the installation of
> the "minimal" system from the dragora-installer...
>
>

Hello Matias!

The stage 1 from this commit [1] can be a base for minimal system and
temporary system at the same time. What do you think about it?

[1] 
https://notabug.org/dustdfg/dragora/commit/bd11424884cb2337294b8a42e4d4e1e2443a9845