Re: GAR versus BBC

Nick.

I am more interested in gar then bbc.  Despite the initial responses I 
got on this list, I
don't think that gar and bbc are orthogonal (whatever that means :-). 
 What I had observed
is that gar is being used to build bbc and gar is being used to build 
gnome and I wondered
if there is some core part of gar which is common to both.  I can't see 
that yet.

I will try out gar (as I mentioned below) and if it does what I need, I 
will stick around.
Since it uses make and since I have hacked together primitive things of 
this sort before
it may be quite useful to me.

I may still try out BBC.  I had planned to try it to see how suitable it 
is as a rescue/
utility disk.

I apologize if I have wasted your time but the website said that gar was 
discussed only
on the bbc-devel list.  I have responded below but you don't need to 
follow-up
unless you think it will be useful to you.


Nick Moffitt wrote:

>	There's not much to learn as far as packaging goes.  All the
>magical stuff goes on in places like gar.lib.mk and gar.mk.  
>
>  
>
>>Something which would be useful is some high-level documents on the
>>components of the system and short "howto"-style documents to get
>>started.  
>>    
>>
>
>http://lnx-bbc.org/README.html
>http://lnx-bbc.org/garchitecture-Maintainer_s_Perspective.htm
>

Thanks.  I've probably looked through those but I will check them out.

>l
>
>  
>
>>It would be quite nice to be able to get the orthogonal
>>pieces:
>> gar, bbc, gnome, home, local, ...
>>and be able to drop them in.
>>    
>>
>
>	I'm not sure I understand.  You seem to be mixing apples and
>donkeys in that list.  GAR is a build system.  The LNX-BBC is an ISO
>

Probably mixing in onions and parfaits (everybody likes parfait :-) too.

<snip>

>>I will try GAR from CVS sometime in the not too-distant future (i.e.
>>before christmas :-).  Let me know if there are any, _very small_,
>>boring tasks I can help with.  I'll continue to read the list for a
>>while, at least.
>>    
>>
>
>	I recommend running a build to see how it goes for you.
>

I tried a couple of things after I downloaded it ... not a build though.

>I think you might like postfix a little better in the end,
>since the only way to set up a fully integrated system with qmail
>

There seem to be different tradeoffs but qmail appears to have wider 
adoption
and a larger support community.

>involves patching the base code with patches that aren't
>regression-tested against each other.  You may choose a feature set
>

There seems to be no "choose a feature set" with qmail.  You have to follow
a strict recipe for which there are some minor variations.  However, once
built, there is no patching and the reviews claim that qmail configuration
is much simpler.

>that spits out rejects, or it may build and not run, or you may simply
>compromise qmail's security model.  If you're going to run qmail
>(which I don't advise due to the terms of distribution), you need to
>use it exactly how Dan Bernstein wants you to or else it will void all
>of the claims you hear about it.
>
>	Why not just use Debian?  
>

I am mostly.   I've been using it since the first public release. 
 However, I
bought a virtual server which is running FreeBSD.  I'm stuck in a part of
Toronto where there is no DSL yet and the cable company does not allow
servers.

>If you want a Linux distribution,
>you know where to find dozens of the things. 
>

I have *used* dozens of the things (almost :-) back to SLS 1.03.

> If you're looking for
>live CD distributions, then this is a good place to start.
>

Not particularly interested in the live CD but gar has some future potential
as a way to build an automated, roll-your-own distro.  Closest thing I've
seen yet ... debian with apt is stiff competition though.

>  
>
>  
>
Thanks again for your time.

--GH.

[ 'onion' and 'parfait' comes from the donkey in Shrek ... in case anyone
hasn't seen it ... one of Eddie Murphy's better roles. ]