[Aboriginal] Is moving control-images to their own repository a good idea?

Bjørn Forsman bjorn.forsman at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 04:52:08 PDT 2011

2011/7/3 Rob Landley <rob at landley.net>:
> On 07/01/2011 10:26 AM, Bjørn Forsman wrote:
>> On 1 July 2011 14:50, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>>> I've been thinking of moving sources/control-images to its own project
>>> for a while now, and am poking at it this morning.
>> Although I see the point in separating the two, because it is "clean",
>> how about keeping them with aboriginal a little longer, for the sake
>> of user + developer(?) convenience?
> What use case did you have in mind?

[Disclaimer: I don't regularly use aboriginal, but I find it very
interesting and would like to start using it to bootstrap stuff.]

For users: only one download, and having control-images in the same
repo makes them "official" and can make it easier to regression test

For developers I was going to say that it makes it easy to do changes
that affect the interface between the control-images and the system
image, but as you point out below, this is not an issue:

> The native build infrastructure doesn't care where the control image
> came from, you just point it and go.  (You can download a system image
> and a control image and set them on each other without compiling
> anything on your host.)

IMHO, until the control-images in aboriginal starts to cause a lot of
churn, it is probably easier for users and developers to keep them in
the same repo. Although aboriginal is supposed to be the *minimal*
build environment that can bootstrap itself, having one extra stage
that builds a minimal gentoo/lfs/debian/... is a major boon, IMHO.

Best regards,
Bjørn Forsman


More information about the Aboriginal mailing list