Re: [Rule-list] Potential low mem boot disk/installer

[James]

On 04 Mar 2002 12:23:49 -0500
Brock Organ <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> I've been there and done that, and the most nagging problem with using
> rpm2cpio is that the package pre and post scripts are not run, this
> means important configuration does not take place ... the other downside
> is that your rpm database does not get updated for the software you've
> installed, which makes rpm a lot less useful ...

Weird thought here.  If the only package you run rpm2cpio on is rpm
itself.  Once it's installed on the HDD then you call it from there to
install the package list, the last item you install is rpm with the
--force option (to get it into the rpm dbase).  Actually there are ways to
create an rpm dbase (FreeBSD Slackware etc use it.) when there is none,
but the pre/post scripts are needed.

James
> 
> What I've done privately is used rpm in a shell script to install
> packages (such as a base system or a workstation system), note the
> package order rpm chooses to install with, then put my pkg list in that
> order and call rpm with the --noorder parameter ... it's a poor man's
> rpm2cpio (:)) with the added benefit of updating the rpm database and
> running pre and post scripts ...
> 
> just my $0.02, :)
> 
> brock
> 
> On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 18:24, Martin Stricker wrote:
> > Devon wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm working on a script to use rpm2cpio to force the packages into
> > > place without actually using rpm. However, the busybox shell doesn't
> > > seem to understand some basic scripting commands. I'm looking for a
> > > small shell to include. At present, without attempting to format the
> > > floppy for a larger size, I have about 195k space left on the disk.
> > > 
> > > Any thoughts or comments on this idea? It won't be as user friendly
as
> > > anaconda, but it should work in 8M without any difficulty at all.
> > 
> > I *really* like your idea, especially using rpm2cpio. If the shell
isn't
> > sufficient a small C program might be better (and most probably uses
> > less resources). The only "small" shells I can think of right now are
sh
> > and csh, both not *really* small.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Martin Stricker
> > -- 
> > Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
> > Red Hat Linux 7.2 for low memory:
http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/rule/
> > Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rule-list mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/rule-list
> -- 
> Brock Organ           QA Engineer             address@hidden  
>   "That which we are, we are..."    "I `em what I`em!"   
>     -Alfred, Lord Tennyson            -Popeye, Lord Sailor    
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rule-list mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/rule-list