Debimg for Ubuntu Intrepid Alternate Disks?

[Julian Andres Klode]

Am Donnerstag, den 24.04.2008, 20:45 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 07:44:14PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > The GPL-3 licensed [http://wiki.debian.org/DebImg debimg] project aims
> > to create a replacement for debian-cd written in Python, able to create
> > basic netinst disks in less than 5 seconds.
> > 
> > debimg uses a dependency resolver written in Python, which is able to
> > resolve the dependencies of all packages in Debian in about 0.5 seconds.
> 
> Somebody would have to replace this with germinate, or else merge the
> appropriate code from debimg into germinate; it's not a good idea to
> diverge different bits of the distribution on something this
> fundamental.
Can it be used directly from within Python, as a package (via import)? I
want to have a function which returns all the packages to be added.
debimg uses apt.cache, which is a bit higher level code, and allows
debimg's code to be really small (it's actually no good code, as there
are even no version number checks [disks could break]).

I will take a look at the germinate code and modify the debimg code to
use the same algorithms (or create the same result).

> 
> > At the current state, it is already possible to build basic netinst
> > disks in less than 5 seconds. It currently supports creation of disks
> > for i386 and amd64 architectures, support for documentation (including
> > README.*) is missing. It supports Jigdo.
> > 
> > This matches almost the requirements of Ubuntu, I could add the missing
> > stuff.
> > 
> > I think it would be worth to use debimg to build the alternate disks for
> > all official architectures. (as others are not supported yet by debimg).
> 
> What are the advantages of this over our current system? So far, it
> sounds like there are at least some regressions (support for
> architectures other than amd64/i386, and almost certainly the need to
> port all our painstakingly-developed customisations to it); what would
> we gain to make this effort worthwhile?
debimg is developed in one language and calls almost no external
programs. It should also be faster than debian-cd, though I can't check
this. I don't know about the exact build system and the modifications
made to debian-cd, are they available somewhere?

My goal with debimg is to support the creation of Debian and Ubuntu
disks, therefore I will add needed features anyway. There won't be much
work left on Canonical's side, once I integrated the features. debimg
will also get support for more architectures in the next version, and a
generic "framework" to add new architectures. It will also be able to
directly use the python-libisofs bindings I develop to create ISO
images.


> 
> I'm no enormous fan of debian-cd, understand, but it sounds like a lot
> of work to shift over to anything else too.
BTW, I never got a working build with debian-cd. If you tell me what
changes are needed, I'll make them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]
> 
-- 
Julian Andres Klode, Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
                     Debian Maintainer | Developer | Ubuntu Member

try Debian: http://www.debian.org/ | my site: http://jak-linux.org/
        jabber: juliank at jabber.org | IRC: juliank (FreeNode, OFTC)
            languages:     German  | English
-- 
Julian Andres Klode, Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
                     Debian Maintainer | Developer | Ubuntu Member

try Debian: http://www.debian.org/ | my site: http://jak-linux.org/
        jabber: juliank at jabber.org | IRC: juliank (FreeNode, OFTC)
            languages:     German  | English
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20080424/a6401fca/attachment-0001.sig>