Re: [Ltib] ltib or not ltib?

[address@hidden]

Hi Stuart,
thanks for reply! See comments below.

Regards,
Andrea

----- Original Message -----
Da : Stuart Hughes <address@hidden>
A : "address@hidden"
<address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Oggetto : Re: [Ltib] ltib or not ltib?
Data : Thu, 31 May 2007 11:37:09 +0100

> LTIB is really intended to complement "real" distros like
> Debian/Fedora etc, never to be an alternative. 

Could you please elaborate a little bit more on this
concept? What do you exactly mean for "complement"? Do you
mean that source packages being built with ltib are supposed
to come from "real" distro source pools?

> The
> purpose really was to provide something for Embedded
> systems that can scale down very small (< 1MB compress
> rootfs) and can also scale up to the "thin-client" type of
> device.

That's what I like most from it... It gives me control on
low level configurations without loosing the whole-thing
point of view and it's intended to keep footprint small.

>  After that point I figure that you may as well
> use a proper distribution.

This approach is fearing me a little bit. Modern "robust"
distros appear to be more PC oriented and would require some
heavy customization to be squeezed on a small storage
device. Some small-size distros are available but sometime
they do still require customization and the process to do so
is not well under control as with ltib's approach. More than
this they are sometime poorly supported and not really
up-to-date as mainline distros.
 
> It is possible to add higher order packages.  Recently
> I've been working on the gstreamer set which has resulted
> in LTIB being able now to work with pkg-config and the
> like to handle the more complex inter package interface
> issue. 

That sounds interesting... I don't know very much about
gstreamer. Is gstreamer requiring any graphic toolkit behind
it? If so I argue you may have been playing with something
not that far from what I need in terms of complexity. What
was your system's architecture?

> Having said that, I do feel that eventually you
> hit packages where you either have to do tricks like
> 'scatchbox' or you need to move over to native compiling
> on the target.  Currently it's not my intention to move in
> that directory.

Neither I want to. Building the entire system on some
development host is what I'm looking for.