[Gnewsense-dev] Re: gen-livecd failure

[Simon Josefsson]

Karl Goetz <address@hidden> writes:

>> correct... So how about using $DISTRONAME_L instead of gnewsense in
>> more places?  And using the same URL to the ubuntu repository as is
>> suggested on the wiki page.  Something like this:
>
> Its setup that way currently because gNS is what builder was made for.
> Since theres never been any reason to change the defaults from ours,
> its not been a priority of any sort. As an example, almost all the
> strings you point out below we dont use anymore -  we override them in
> config.local.
>
> Now you've reminded me, I've gone and poked the file. do another
> checkout and tell me what you think.
>
> A lot are still gNS specific, but I dont see the point in having lots
> of "CHANGEME" lines. Also, config.local can do almost everything config
> can, and after i've mangled a bit more magic, should be able to support
> all the same options.

Looks good in general, thanks!

It's difficult to use config.local cleanly, though.  If you for example
override BASEDIR or DISTRONAME, you'll have to pull in code from config.
Maybe config.local should be read earlier in config?  I'm not sure a
config.local is useful.

>>  # Where the buildscripts and livecd pull sources from
>> -REPOAPT=http://127.0.0.1/~bbrazil/srv/gnewsense/gnewsense
>> +REPOAPT=http://127.0.0.1/$DISTRONAME_L/$DISTRONAME_L
>
> Changed to REPOAPT=http://127.0.0.1/$DISTRONAME_L

Does that work?  gen-livecd appear to needed
http://127.0.0.1/$DISTRONAME_L/$DISTRONAME_L at least if you follow the
hint in the wiki to symlink $REPODST to /var/www/$DISTRONAME_L.  Maybe
the wiki should say symlink $REPODST/$DISTRONAME_L instead?  Yes,
looking at what's served directly under $REPODST now, it looks like
things that shouldn't be exposed even to a local web server.

>> I guess some of the images under packages/ are gnewsense-specific, but
>> at least the above means I get a CD image.  Branding can always be
>> improved later...
>> 
>> Hm.  Maybe the above is too complex, and the simplest solution is to
>> revert the change to config that used $DISTRONAME_L in the package
>
> This is what I'm leaning towards.

I think that would be good.  It will allow people to build their own CD
images with a distribution called something else (always good to avoid
confusion) but if they want to modify artwork, they need to do more work
-- but it can be limited to replacing just one PNG file under packages/,
not duplicate an entire package hierarchy.  I think it is cool that it
is so easy to build your own distribution.

/Simon