Ruby-oriented Linux distro?

[Ben Giddings]

I have almost completed x86-64 support in rubyx (64bit native). The Rubyx
script does all the cross compiling for you automatically. But it was
certainly a pain getting it all to work...

Cool stuff, I'd like to check it out.

Yes, its like gentoo, but far more customizable. You can say Build me a new
distro please; I'll have linux-2.6-test7, and use gcc 3.3.2 with libc-HEAD
using the NPTL. Compile everything for the pentium4, using these flags....
Or you can just go with the defaults, which are also good, and safer

Cool, now when you say "build me a new distro", that will typically include
a bootloader, a window manager (Gnome or KDE), a default shell, a web
browser, an editor, and a bunch of other things. Do you get to choose
them? What are the defaults and what others are supported?

Also, if you're cross compiling the distro, what format are the outputs in?
(straight binaries, tarballs, another binary package, ...) Also, how
easy is it to make a live CD, or an install CD?

Could someone who knows both give a bullet-point summary of the differences
between Rubyx and Lunar Linux?

Ben

 

[Andrew Walrond]

Cool, now when you say "build me a new distro", that will typically include
a bootloader, a window manager (Gnome or KDE), a default shell, a web
browser, an editor, and a bunch of other things. Do you get to choose
them? What are the defaults and what others are supported?

I'll answer for x86; x86-64 should be similar when complete

Yes. Grub is included. Lilo would take minutes to add
Kde works fine; Gnome used to work, but needs some attention atm
I just use Konqueror; Have had mozilla working but needs bringing upto date.
Shell is bash. Xemacs and Vim included. I can add any other editor you care to
mention in a few minutes - thats the beauty of rubyx.

You have compile control of the packages you build into your distro, including
(supported) versions if you don't want the default

Also, if you're cross compiling the distro, what format are the outputs in?
(straight binaries, tarballs, another binary package, ...) Also, how

Rubyx builds a native distro to your specification into a specified dir or
partition, from source.

For x86-64 on a machine running a 64bit kernel but 32bit userspace, rubyx
builds a cross-compile toolchain, uses that to build native toolchain and
fundamental packages, chroots and builds everything else from a pure 64bit
environment. I have Lots of build issues with lots of packages right now, but
am making good headway (with x86-64)

easy is it to make a live CD, or an install CD?

Dunno; never done it. I always build straight into a partition using an
existing linux installation, or build the distro on another machine and boot
the new pc with a rescue cd like bbc, then scp it over.

Live cd should be real easy to do though.

Could someone who knows both give a bullet-point summary of the differences
between Rubyx and Lunar Linux?

I doubt it, since I'm the only person using rubyx, and I haven't tried lunar
yet

Andrew

 

[Josef 'Jupp' Schugt]

* Simon Strandgaard; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:46:05 +0200

Though I prefer FreeBSD istead of Linux

Anybody want popcorn? Follows standard form (I did already fill in).

[ ] FreeBSD
[ ] FreeDOS
[ ] Hurd
[ ] Linux
[ ] NetBSD
[ ] OpenBSD
[x] I don't care

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt

 

[Ben Giddings]

On Thursday 23 Oct 2003 9:49 pm, Ben Giddings wrote:
Yes. Grub is included. Lilo would take minutes to add
Kde works fine; Gnome used to work, but needs some attention atm
I just use Konqueror; Have had mozilla working but needs bringing upto date.
Shell is bash. Xemacs and Vim included. I can add any other editor you care to
mention in a few minutes - thats the beauty of rubyx.

So what is "Rubyx" so far? What code exists there that makes it distinct
from RedHat, Gentoo or Lunar Linux? What are your goals with the project?

I doubt it, since I'm the only person using rubyx, and I haven't tried lunar
yet

Hmm, from looking at the Lunar web site and looking at what you've
described, they sound remarkably similar. Both are geared towards
compiling from source. It sounds like they might have more infrastructure
in place, but you probably have a more capable build environment.

I'd like to work on a Ruby-based Linux distribution, particularly on either
the package management part or the init script part, but I think it would
be a shame if there are two Ruby-based Linux distributions which aren't
working together.

Ben

 

[Chuck Mead]

Hmm, from looking at the Lunar web site and looking at what you've
described, they sound remarkably similar. Both are geared towards
compiling from source. It sounds like they might have more
infrastructure in place, but you probably have a more capable build
environment.

I'd like to work on a Ruby-based Linux distribution, particularly on
either the package management part or the init script part, but I think
it would be a shame if there are two Ruby-based Linux distributions
which aren't working together.

Right now Lunar's Application Management System (AMS) is bash based. It
has a systemV init style, aims to be FHS compliant and is in it's sixth
release. We have a bug reporting tool in place, cvs, web site with news
and announcements, several mailing lists and a number of active irc
channels.

We are looking at two areas to upgrade. We've been talking for a year
about what we would like our AMS to be and ruby is something we would
like to look at. Several of our users (who are also developers) like
ruby a lot. The other area we want to fix is our init system but I
confess I had not thought of doing anything with ruby for that and
frankly I would have no idea what it would entail right now.

Anyway Hal started this thread because he wants to redo the AMS in ruby
and from my perspective as the project leader that sounds just fine.

 

[Phil Tomson]

Right now Lunar's Application Management System (AMS) is bash based. It
has a systemV init style, aims to be FHS compliant and is in it's sixth
release. We have a bug reporting tool in place, cvs, web site with news
and announcements, several mailing lists and a number of active irc
channels.

We are looking at two areas to upgrade. We've been talking for a year
about what we would like our AMS to be and ruby is something we would
like to look at. Several of our users (who are also developers) like
ruby a lot. The other area we want to fix is our init system but I
confess I had not thought of doing anything with ruby for that and
frankly I would have no idea what it would entail right now.

I could see the Rubyx Ruby-based init system possibly being a totally
distinct component that could just be dropped into other distros. It
would make a lot of sense to 'drop' it into Lunar since you're planning to
use Ruby heavily so you'll have Ruby around in your base distro.

So Rubyx people: what do you think about maintaining your Ruby-based init
system as a seperate component (maybe you're already doing that).

Lunar people: Would you consider using this Ruby-based init system?

(Notice I'm not saying that the two projects should merge - I suspect they
each have different approaches to package management and so they can still
maintain their distinct flavors even if they're using the same init
system)

What's the advantage? you ask... I've got to admit I haven't looked
at Rubyx's Ruby-based init system (can we come up with a catchy name for
it so I don't have to keep typing all that: rubinit, init.rb, ... ideas?)
but I suspect it should be a lot nicer than the current init (shell)
scripts used in most distros. If we can make the case for this (and
having it being used in a couple of disros can't hurt.) then perhaps other
distros besides rubyx and lunar might be interested in using it... and
when that happens we will have 'sneaked' Ruby in as a standard package on
that many more machines - and if your ISP just happens to use one of those
distros, well then Ruby will be available on your ISP.

This was also the reason for suggesting an article in one of the
Linux 'zines on rubinit (or whatever it is you want to call it) -
a little publicity can't hurt and if it's a really slick init system
you'll find that even non-Rubyists will want to give it a try.

Phil

 

[Chuck Mead]

I could see the Rubyx Ruby-based init system possibly being a totally
distinct component that could just be dropped into other distros. It
would make a lot of sense to 'drop' it into Lunar since you're planning to
use Ruby heavily so you'll have Ruby around in your base distro.

So Rubyx people: what do you think about maintaining your Ruby-based init
system as a seperate component (maybe you're already doing that).

Lunar people: Would you consider using this Ruby-based init system?

Certainly. But we have not seen it as, apparently, the code is not yet
public.

(Notice I'm not saying that the two projects should merge - I suspect they
each have different approaches to package management and so they can still
maintain their distinct flavors even if they're using the same init
system)

What's the advantage? you ask... I've got to admit I haven't looked
at Rubyx's Ruby-based init system (can we come up with a catchy name for
it so I don't have to keep typing all that: rubinit, init.rb, ... ideas?)
but I suspect it should be a lot nicer than the current init (shell)
scripts used in most distros. If we can make the case for this (and
having it being used in a couple of disros can't hurt.) then perhaps other
distros besides rubyx and lunar might be interested in using it... and
when that happens we will have 'sneaked' Ruby in as a standard package on
that many more machines - and if your ISP just happens to use one of those
distros, well then Ruby will be available on your ISP.

As I said we would be interested in seeing it.

 

[gabriele renzi]

il Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:34:48 +0900, Ben Giddings

So what is "Rubyx" so far? What code exists there that makes it distinct
from RedHat, Gentoo or Lunar Linux? What are your goals with the project?

I think that the point is: rubyx is less old-style, while LL is still
mostly compatible with the other distros.
Rubyx does'nt have a FSH compliant fs, and the init system is not the
standard SysV init (and from what I remember it is way better than
that..)
Anyway, I like the idea of two distro using ruby.

I think it's really cool to see ruby used in as many place as
possible