Re: Configuration Management of root files system

From: Trevor Barton (tmb_at_Xisotek.co.uk)
Date: 06/16/04

  • Next message: Aaron Manning: "uClinux Distro-20040408 System V IPC Compile Error" 
    Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:14:09 GMT

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:43:37 -0500, Mark H Johnson wrote:
    > John Miller wrote:
    >
    >> Mark H Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com> wrote in message news:<7Jkzc.2$SD2.1@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>...
    >>
    >>>Not quite sure how much CM you want to do. If you just want the "current
    >>>baseline" for your root file system, I suggest using System Imager
    >>> http://www.systemimager.org/
    >>>which I've used to manage the master image of several clusters of systems.
    >>>[snip]
    >> Thanks for the feedback Mark.
    >>
    >> Keeping multiple versions is what I'm really aiming for. I'm thinking
    >> that as we progress through development that the /etc files will
    >> undergo change while most others probably won't. I'm looking at the
    >> different products and seeing that BitKeeper perserves permissions.
    >> But I'm guessing that most of the linux developers out there just tar
    >> the entire thing up, and archive the tar ball. So, /etc files are
    >> managed by release, not by version. Perhaps I'm over estimating the
    >> need for CM on this issue. Please enlighten me.
    >
    > Hmm. I would guess that most developers keep track of their source files
    > using CVS, BitKeeper, or some other tool. The usual sequence of
    > ./config; make; ./install
    > (or an RPM build / install)
    > would then build and put the files in the right place and fix them up.
    > However, we may be saying the same thing in different ways - where you
    > say "the files are managed by release".
    >
    > Like I said in my previous message - we only manage the root file system
    > as the "current baseline" and don't care all that much about how we got
    > to that point (other than having all the source necessary to get there).
    > The source on the other hand is managed by version - with a few years of
    > history to show the changes and who made them.
    >
    > I haven't seen any one else speak up on this issue - perhaps they do the
    > same.

    We do the same, more or less. I have a VMware session with the base OS
    I am building the root from and a set of scripts to build a RFS from that.
    The advantage of using a VMWare session are several, first you can install
    from any old distro, and second that you can do kernel builds in place
    and at the end of the job just tar up the VMware session for retrieval
    later if neccessary. That means that you always have a compatible
    environment and all the build tools no matter what you do with your
    desktop in the meantime. VMware seems to maintain compatibility fairly
    well, I still occasionally boot an old NT session I originally built with
    VMWare V2.? on my modern V4.5 release. 

    -- 
Trevor Barton
  • Next message: Aaron Manning: "uClinux Distro-20040408 System V IPC Compile Error"