The xen debian packaging currently produces a debian package of what ''make install'' would produce. This includes a fair amount of development only stuff, puts the hypervisor in /boot etc. This packaging is not used by Ubuntu (I don''t know about debian). I have a hack: https://github.com/abligh/xen-4.2-live-migrate/commit/ffbfc9394a74d0344be5982a5fed9aa9fa28ad74 that produces a ''minideb''. The idea was to put in the minimum of userspace code that would be required to run xen4.2 and xl. This excludes the hypervisor which if I were less lazy would be in a separate package, as you don''t need that on disk when you are network booting. Is there any interest in taking this into mainline if I clear it up? It''s just another make target (make minideb) so is pretty unintrusive. -- Alex Bligh
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 17:13 +0000, Alex Bligh wrote:> The xen debian packaging currently produces a debian package of what > ''make install'' would produce. This includes a fair amount of development > only stuff, puts the hypervisor in /boot etc.Xen make deb target is intended as a developer convenience package (essentially to allow a cleaner uninstall) and is not intended as a full user focused package.> This packaging is not used by Ubuntu (I don''t know about debian).It''s not expected to be, both of these have good proper packages of Xen. Ian.> > I have a hack: > > https://github.com/abligh/xen-4.2-live-migrate/commit/ffbfc9394a74d0344be5982a5fed9aa9fa28ad74 > > that produces a ''minideb''. The idea was to put in the minimum of userspace > code that would be required to run xen4.2 and xl. This excludes the > hypervisor which if I were less lazy would be in a separate package, > as you don''t need that on disk when you are network booting. > > Is there any interest in taking this into mainline if I clear it up? > It''s just another make target (make minideb) so is pretty unintrusive. >
At 17:13 +0000 on 22 Feb (1361553221), Alex Bligh wrote:> The xen debian packaging currently produces a debian package of what > ''make install'' would produce. This includes a fair amount of development > only stuff, puts the hypervisor in /boot etc. > > This packaging is not used by Ubuntu (I don''t know about debian).Debian also has its own packaging of Xen. The ''make deb'' target is explicitly not an attempt to package Xen in a way that''s suitable for deployment -- it''s just a way for developers to to install a build onto a testbox and cleanly uninstall it later. Your minideb seems much more like a ''proper'' package to me (with init files &c), and I''m inclined to suggest that if Debian''s/Ubuntu''s own packaging for Xen doesn''t do what you need you should get involved in Debian/Ubuntu to make it so rather than duplicating effort here. That said, tools and packaging aren''t really my area and the tools maintainers may disagree. I''m just commenting as the person responsible for the original make deb target. Cheers, Tim.
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 17:40 +0000, Tim Deegan wrote:> At 17:13 +0000 on 22 Feb (1361553221), Alex Bligh wrote: > > The xen debian packaging currently produces a debian package of what > > ''make install'' would produce. This includes a fair amount of development > > only stuff, puts the hypervisor in /boot etc. > > > > This packaging is not used by Ubuntu (I don''t know about debian). > > Debian also has its own packaging of Xen. > > The ''make deb'' target is explicitly not an attempt to package Xen in a > way that''s suitable for deployment -- it''s just a way for developers to > to install a build onto a testbox and cleanly uninstall it later. > > Your minideb seems much more like a ''proper'' package to me (with init > files &c), and I''m inclined to suggest that if Debian''s/Ubuntu''s own > packaging for Xen doesn''t do what you need you should get involved in > Debian/Ubuntu to make it so rather than duplicating effort here. > > That said, tools and packaging aren''t really my area and the tools > maintainers may disagree.FWIW I agree.> I''m just commenting as the person responsible for the original make deb target. > > Cheers, > > Tim. > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Tim Deegan wrote:> At 17:13 +0000 on 22 Feb (1361553221), Alex Bligh wrote: > > The xen debian packaging currently produces a debian package of what > > ''make install'' would produce. This includes a fair amount of development > > only stuff, puts the hypervisor in /boot etc. > > > > This packaging is not used by Ubuntu (I don''t know about debian). > > Debian also has its own packaging of Xen. > > The ''make deb'' target is explicitly not an attempt to package Xen in a > way that''s suitable for deployment -- it''s just a way for developers to > to install a build onto a testbox and cleanly uninstall it later. > > Your minideb seems much more like a ''proper'' package to me (with init > files &c), and I''m inclined to suggest that if Debian''s/Ubuntu''s own > packaging for Xen doesn''t do what you need you should get involved in > Debian/Ubuntu to make it so rather than duplicating effort here. > > That said, tools and packaging aren''t really my area and the tools > maintainers may disagree. I''m just commenting as the person responsible > for the original make deb target.I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article?
Tim, --On 22 February 2013 17:40:10 +0000 Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:> At 17:13 +0000 on 22 Feb (1361553221), Alex Bligh wrote: >> The xen debian packaging currently produces a debian package of what >> ''make install'' would produce. This includes a fair amount of development >> only stuff, puts the hypervisor in /boot etc. >> >> This packaging is not used by Ubuntu (I don''t know about debian). > > Debian also has its own packaging of Xen. > > The ''make deb'' target is explicitly not an attempt to package Xen in a > way that''s suitable for deployment -- it''s just a way for developers to > to install a build onto a testbox and cleanly uninstall it later.That''s not too far from how we use the minideb thing. We can''t develop on our appliance boxes as they have no disk, so we need a convenient way to get xen on there. As it happens, we use the same method in production (it pulls over a pile of .debs). As we use this for other things too, it was easier than moving over a .tgz.> Your minideb seems much more like a ''proper'' package to me (with init > files &c), and I''m inclined to suggest that if Debian''s/Ubuntu''s own > packaging for Xen doesn''t do what you need you should get involved in > Debian/Ubuntu to make it so rather than duplicating effort here.Sure. Last time I looked neither Ubuntu nor Debian shipped 4.2. That appears to have changed(-ish), in that Ubuntu raring now has 4.2 in. We needed to build our own binaries and had sufficient issues with their packaging before that we went our own way. Perhaps I should reexamine their packaging again. -- Alex Bligh
--On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the > xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. > Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article?I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files too. -- Alex Bligh
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote:> > > --On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the >> xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. >> Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article? > > > I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish > it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line > change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files > too.This would be very useful for people trying to create their own minimal Xen image. I have been struggling with this for the past few days. http://xen.markmail.org/thread/dac5kkuliky5373l Thanks, AP
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, AP wrote:> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > --On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini > > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > > >> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the > >> xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. > >> Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article? > > > > > > I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish > > it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line > > change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files > > too. > > This would be very useful for people trying to create their own > minimal Xen image. I have been struggling with this for the past few > days. > > http://xen.markmail.org/thread/dac5kkuliky5373lIf there is a need for it and clearly the upstream Debian maintainers don''t care either way, why shouldn''t we add the minideb target to our own build system? If we are going to have a deb target anyway, we might as well make it a useful one...
At 12:44 +0000 on 25 Feb (1361796242), Stefano Stabellini wrote:> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, AP wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini > > > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the > > >> xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. > > >> Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article? > > > > > > > > > I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish > > > it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line > > > change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files > > > too. > > > > This would be very useful for people trying to create their own > > minimal Xen image. I have been struggling with this for the past few > > days. > > > > http://xen.markmail.org/thread/dac5kkuliky5373l > > If there is a need for it and clearly the upstream Debian maintainers > don''t care either way, why shouldn''t we add the minideb target to our > own build system? If we are going to have a deb target anyway, we might > as well make it a useful one...Hrmn. AFAICT what''s really wanted here is a set of Xen 4.2 packages for Debian/Ubuntu. That would be much more widely useful, for a similar amount of effort. Tim.
On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 13:12 +0000, Tim Deegan wrote:> At 12:44 +0000 on 25 Feb (1361796242), Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, AP wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini > > > > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the > > > >> xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. > > > >> Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article? > > > > > > > > > > > > I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish > > > > it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line > > > > change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files > > > > too. > > > > > > This would be very useful for people trying to create their own > > > minimal Xen image. I have been struggling with this for the past few > > > days. > > > > > > http://xen.markmail.org/thread/dac5kkuliky5373l > > > > If there is a need for it and clearly the upstream Debian maintainers > > don''t care either way, why shouldn''t we add the minideb target to our > > own build system? If we are going to have a deb target anyway, we might > > as well make it a useful one... > > Hrmn. AFAICT what''s really wanted here is a set of Xen 4.2 packages for > Debian/Ubuntu. That would be much more widely useful, for a similar > amount of effort.4.2.0 is already in Debian experimental. Ian.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 13:12 +0000, Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 12:44 +0000 on 25 Feb (1361796242), Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, AP wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini > > > > > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the > > > > >> xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. > > > > >> Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish > > > > > it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line > > > > > change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > This would be very useful for people trying to create their own > > > > minimal Xen image. I have been struggling with this for the past few > > > > days. > > > > > > > > http://xen.markmail.org/thread/dac5kkuliky5373l > > > > > > If there is a need for it and clearly the upstream Debian maintainers > > > don''t care either way, why shouldn''t we add the minideb target to our > > > own build system? If we are going to have a deb target anyway, we might > > > as well make it a useful one... > > > > Hrmn. AFAICT what''s really wanted here is a set of Xen 4.2 packages for > > Debian/Ubuntu. That would be much more widely useful, for a similar > > amount of effort. > > 4.2.0 is already in Debian experimental.There might be many reasons why one would want to roll his own packages rather than using a distro package. Given that we already have a deb target, it doesn''t cost as much to add a second one, that is actually useful.
On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 15:26 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:> > 4.2.0 is already in Debian experimental. > > There might be many reasons why one would want to roll his own packages > rather than using a distro package.Then start from the distro package, it''s not that hard.> Given that we already have a deb target, it doesn''t cost as much to add > a second one, that is actually useful.There is a cost though, because once you start saying this is a user focused thing which users should actually use then they will do so. A proper package (especially of something like Xen) which integrates well with the distro is a lot of work, which should rightly be happening in the distro. If the existing deb target is going to be the thin end of the wedge of doing more and more packaging work in the Xen tree itself then I would rather we just removed it. Ian.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:> On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 13:12 +0000, Tim Deegan wrote: >> At 12:44 +0000 on 25 Feb (1361796242), Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, AP wrote: >> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > --On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini >> > > > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the >> > > >> xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. >> > > >> Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish >> > > > it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line >> > > > change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files >> > > > too. >> > > >> > > This would be very useful for people trying to create their own >> > > minimal Xen image. I have been struggling with this for the past few >> > > days. >> > > >> > > http://xen.markmail.org/thread/dac5kkuliky5373l >> > >> > If there is a need for it and clearly the upstream Debian maintainers >> > don''t care either way, why shouldn''t we add the minideb target to our >> > own build system? If we are going to have a deb target anyway, we might >> > as well make it a useful one... >> >> Hrmn. AFAICT what''s really wanted here is a set of Xen 4.2 packages for >> Debian/Ubuntu. That would be much more widely useful, for a similar >> amount of effort. > > 4.2.0 is already in Debian experimental. > > Ian. > >4.2.0 is in Ubuntu raring as well. chuck> _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
At 11:29 -0500 on 25 Feb (1361791759), Chuck Short wrote:> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 13:12 +0000, Tim Deegan wrote: > >> At 12:44 +0000 on 25 Feb (1361796242), Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, AP wrote: > >> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > --On 22 February 2013 17:57:47 +0000 Stefano Stabellini > >> > > > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> I think it could still be very useful to many people. If not on the > >> > > >> xen-unstable repository, it should still be published somewhere. > >> > > >> Maybe a link on the wiki or a blog article? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > I''m happy to tidy it up a bit if people think it is useful, and publish > >> > > > it wherever. From memory the impact on the main code base is a 3 line > >> > > > change to the Makefile, and doubtless I could minimise the other files > >> > > > too. > >> > > > >> > > This would be very useful for people trying to create their own > >> > > minimal Xen image. I have been struggling with this for the past few > >> > > days. > >> > > > >> > > http://xen.markmail.org/thread/dac5kkuliky5373l > >> > > >> > If there is a need for it and clearly the upstream Debian maintainers > >> > don''t care either way, why shouldn''t we add the minideb target to our > >> > own build system? If we are going to have a deb target anyway, we might > >> > as well make it a useful one... > >> > >> Hrmn. AFAICT what''s really wanted here is a set of Xen 4.2 packages for > >> Debian/Ubuntu. That would be much more widely useful, for a similar > >> amount of effort. > > > > 4.2.0 is already in Debian experimental. > > > > Ian. > > > > > 4.2.0 is in Ubuntu raring as well.Excellent! :) Tim.
> 4.2.0 is already in Debian experimental.Unfortunately, it''s 4.2.0 not 4.2.1 and it''s also missing a lot of things. No PVGrub, no qemu (either -xen or -traditional), ... I''ve been trying to modify the packages to make it build those, but not all the problems are solved yet. Debian applies a bunch of patches to install stuff "at the right places" ... Cheers, Sylvain
--On 25 February 2013 13:12:48 +0000 Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:> Hrmn. AFAICT what''s really wanted here is a set of Xen 4.2 packages for > Debian/Ubuntu. That would be much more widely useful, for a similar > amount of effort.When I first did this, there were no Xen4.2 packages. Now both Ubuntu raring and Debian Experimental have them. However, that isn''t the end of the story. If you want a lightweight deb that doesn''t take 39 years to build and is integrated into the build system (because you are a developer), the minideb thing is far easier (as it''s just an extra make step), than debuild -us -uc -b, dealing with all the debian/ubuntu patches that get applied to the source, etc. etc. The other point is that debian/ubuntu are ALWAYS going to be behind unstable, so if you want an unstable set of packages (meaning ''means to install your developed code on a box that you aren''t compiling on), well, tough. We had this difficulty when 4.2 *was* unstable - I wrote the minideb stuff precisely because I couldn''t get Ubuntu''s 4.1/4.0 packaging to do sensible things. And at the time Debian''s "4.2" package did not appear to bear a meaningful relationship to any source tree I could find. That''s not a criticism of either maintainer - I just wanted to make a package from Unstable that worked. Further, as Sylvain Munuat pointed out, the debian/ubuntu (certainly ubuntu) packages are often incomplete. In 4.1 Ubuntu, various libraries were missing, for instance. They are targeted at the user who wants support from their distro, as opposed to the developer who is trying to find an easy way to install a copy of xen he''s developed. On the other hand I can see the ''thin end of the wedge'' argument. Perhaps in the ''make deb'' makefile (and the ''make minideb'' thing if you take that in) it should say in capital letters with asterisks that this is a development package and no substitute for a distribution install. I''m not trying to displace proper debian/ubuntu packaging here. And it''s no skin off my nose either way really as we compile our own stuff anyway so pulling it a changeset is not a huge amount of work. I just thought it might be useful! -- Alex Bligh
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote:> > > --On 25 February 2013 13:12:48 +0000 Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote: > >> Hrmn. AFAICT what''s really wanted here is a set of Xen 4.2 packages for >> Debian/Ubuntu. That would be much more widely useful, for a similar >> amount of effort. > > > When I first did this, there were no Xen4.2 packages. Now both Ubuntu > raring and Debian Experimental have them. > > However, that isn''t the end of the story. If you want a lightweight > deb that doesn''t take 39 years to build and is integrated into the > build system (because you are a developer), the minideb thing is > far easier (as it''s just an extra make step), than debuild -us -uc -b, > dealing with all the debian/ubuntu patches that get applied to the > source, etc. etc. > > The other point is that debian/ubuntu are ALWAYS going to be behind > unstable, so if you want an unstable set of packages (meaning > ''means to install your developed code on a box that you > aren''t compiling on), well, tough. We had this difficulty > when 4.2 *was* unstable - I wrote the minideb stuff precisely because > I couldn''t get Ubuntu''s 4.1/4.0 packaging to do sensible things. > And at the time Debian''s "4.2" package did not appear to bear a > meaningful relationship to any source tree I could find. That''s > not a criticism of either maintainer - I just wanted to make a > package from Unstable that worked. > > Further, as Sylvain Munuat pointed out, the debian/ubuntu (certainly > ubuntu) packages are often incomplete. In 4.1 Ubuntu, various libraries > were missing, for instance. They are targeted at the user who wants > support from their distro, as opposed to the developer who is trying > to find an easy way to install a copy of xen he''s developed. > > On the other hand I can see the ''thin end of the wedge'' argument. > Perhaps in the ''make deb'' makefile (and the ''make minideb'' thing > if you take that in) it should say in capital letters with asterisks > that this is a development package and no substitute for a distribution > install. > > I''m not trying to displace proper debian/ubuntu packaging here. And > it''s no skin off my nose either way really as we compile our own > stuff anyway so pulling it a changeset is not a huge amount of work. > I just thought it might be useful!+1 I am in a similar situation as I want some of the patches from upstream.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Alex Bligh wrote:> However, that isn''t the end of the story. If you want a lightweight > deb that doesn''t take 39 years to build and is integrated into the > build system (because you are a developer), the minideb thing is > far easier (as it''s just an extra make step), than debuild -us -uc -b, > dealing with all the debian/ubuntu patches that get applied to the > source, etc. etc.That''s all good, but how does it compare to the deb target of the xen-unstable build system? I think we are not going to have two different deb build targets, so given that we already have one, we would replace it only if your minideb is better in some ways.
Stefano, --On 25 February 2013 20:14:33 +0000 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Alex Bligh wrote: >> However, that isn''t the end of the story. If you want a lightweight >> deb that doesn''t take 39 years to build and is integrated into the >> build system (because you are a developer), the minideb thing is >> far easier (as it''s just an extra make step), than debuild -us -uc -b, >> dealing with all the debian/ubuntu patches that get applied to the >> source, etc. etc. > > That''s all good, but how does it compare to the deb target of the > xen-unstable build system?How does the minideb thing compare? It''s exactly the same, except: * it misses the files that aren''t needed for a minimal xl based install. So, for instance, no header files. * I made the init scripts do something useful (arguably this change should be brought over to the main debian target).>From memory I copied mkdeb:https://github.com/abligh/xen-4.2-live-migrate/blob/ffbfc9394a74d0344be5982a5fed9aa9fa28ad74/tools/misc/mkdeb and made this: https://github.com/abligh/xen-4.2-live-migrate/blob/ffbfc9394a74d0344be5982a5fed9aa9fa28ad74/minideb/mkdeb> I think we are not going to have two different deb build targets, so > given that we already have one, we would replace it only if your minideb > is better in some ways.Well, the init scripts work (though those could be copied across). I suppose given they are so similar one route would be a ''what would you like in your .deb'' parameter (e.g. ''make deb SRC=0'') As I said, I''m really not that fussed as it ''works for me''. -- Alex Bligh
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Alex Bligh wrote:> Stefano, > > --On 25 February 2013 20:14:33 +0000 Stefano Stabellini > <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Alex Bligh wrote: > >> However, that isn''t the end of the story. If you want a lightweight > >> deb that doesn''t take 39 years to build and is integrated into the > >> build system (because you are a developer), the minideb thing is > >> far easier (as it''s just an extra make step), than debuild -us -uc -b, > >> dealing with all the debian/ubuntu patches that get applied to the > >> source, etc. etc. > > > > That''s all good, but how does it compare to the deb target of the > > xen-unstable build system? > > How does the minideb thing compare? It''s exactly the same, except: > > * it misses the files that aren''t needed for a minimal xl based install. > So, for instance, no header files. > > * I made the init scripts do something useful (arguably this change > should be brought over to the main debian target).Could you "fix" the init scripts in the main debian target? If we overlook the lack of header files, you''ll have what you want and we won''t have to maintain two separate deb build targets.
--On 26 February 2013 08:18:41 +0000 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> Could you "fix" the init scripts in the main debian target? > If we overlook the lack of header files, you''ll have what you want and > we won''t have to maintain two separate deb build targets.Sure I can fix them. That doesn''t however get me what I use the target for (happy to do it anyway though). The ''mini'' in ''minideb'' was precisely so it didn''t install everything. In my case I''m installing into a ramdisk so space matters. How about having flags set on the target which would allow different things in (xend / no xend, dev headers / no dev headers)? -- Alex Bligh