On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:05:41AM +0200, Thomas Penteker wrote:
* Juergen Daubert (jue@jue.li) wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:43:15AM +0200, Thomas Penteker wrote: (...) First thanks for you work, but again you are very late with it, because we released an official 2.6-test1 already. Adding new features after that is something we should avoid.
You are right, of course. My current working situation did not permit me to get this done earlier.
Cryptsetup and dependencies should be added to packages.opt if we need them as packages on the ISO. Adding opt/popt to the ISO might create hidden problems, because other (core)ports will link against popt if installed. Currently our ISO bootstrap process can not prevent that, so we have to carefully check all packages after the bootstrap.
That's true. Let me know if I can help out.
I guess your final idea is to have a versioned tarball somewhere for download and not to provide the two binaries within the port?
It'd save the user from going through (some) hassle, see below.
Sorry, I mean a tarball with at least the two big binaries busybox and cryptsetup in it. With your current solution ever user is forced to download them with ports -u.
Do we really need a binary port at all? It should be possible to create cryptsetup-static in opt/cryptsetup? Is the busybox binary in any kind special for cryptsetup or can we use a new busybox port for that purpose?
It's not that easy to build it statically linked; libdevmapper needs to be linked statically for this, too, that's why I provided cryptsetup as a binary.
Not a problem, having a static libdevmapper seem to be a good idea anyway. I'll commit an updated version of libdevmapper soon. best regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux