Re: [Dragora-users] Proposal: flexible script to create different images

[Matías Fonzo]

El 2022-05-14 10:05, DustDFG escribió:
> On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 6:08 AM DustDFG <dfgdust@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:18 PM Matias Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > El 2022-05-13 13:51, DustDFG escribió:
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I started to get confused in a lot of ghosts of previous messages so I
> > > > decided to delete them
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> The package names will look to something like (sorry, I am not at
> > > >> Dragora right now):
> > > >>
> > > >>      kmod_29_amd64+1@kernel.tlz
> > > >>      kernel-buildtree-generic_5.16.18_amd64+1@kernel.tlz
> > > >>      kernel-generic_5.16.18_amd64+3@essential.tlz (with the category
> > > >> renamed)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to say that we will give:
> > > >
> > > > category/package-name
> > > >
> > > > essential/kernel-generic (now at kernel category)
> > > > essential/kernel-headers (now at kernel category)
> > > > essential/firmware (now at kernel category)
> > > >
> > > > kernel/buildtree-generic
> > > > kernel/kmod
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that it is a so good idea but what do you think about
> > > > making
> > > > the kernel category as subcategory for essential?
> > >
> > > Sounds good, the subcategory can be package_name@essential_kernel.tlz
> > > and we don't need add more code, except for those third-party tools that
> > > tries to guess the second category.
> > >
> >
> > In this case we will give situation when two packages (kmod and
> > buildtree-generic) are part of essential category hierarchy but in the
> > same time they aren't part of minimal system.
>
> I am sorry, it was a mistake. I found that kernel/generic depends on 
> kernel/kmod

Yes, kmod is needed to handle the Linux kernel modules.  There is no 
problem!

In the case of "kernel/buildtree-generic", this is not essential, as it 
is the build directory as it is generated from the "kernel/generic" 
recipe, depicting how it was produced using our instructions/config, 
also packaged so that the user as well as other software can make use of 
it ("other" software that needs the Linux Kernel build-tree to build)...

> > I also think that we can make an exception for kernel category and not
> > to change it. So we will get essential category that contains
> > everything for the minimal system except the kernel. It is obvious
> > that system needs kernel for running so it isn't so necessary to point
> > out it. In this case, hypothetical essential.order file will process
> > only packages from these two categories and it looks logical. What do
> > you think about it? What do you like more (subcategory or exception
> > for kernel category or maybe something else)?

I'm sending a reply in another email, so it doesn't get too long.