[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pkgsrc tree on fat filesystem
Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>:
> lausgans%gmail.com@localhost writes:
>> I’m interesting in whether the subject is possible?
>> I’ve heard that one may put pkgsrc on case-insensitive
>> fs, and that’s good, but how about fs without posix permissions?
>> I’ve tried, but it looks broken, bmake fails at relative paths somehow.
>> How to fix this?
>> P.S.: i have all the things (like pkg base and work dir) pointed to a
>> proper unix partition, so this shouldn’t be a trouble. I only need to
>> read pkgsrc tree stored on fat fs.
> I suspect this is one of those cases where no one ever tries, and it
> might not work, either because of something that's actually hard to fix
> or because of something trivial.
> Can you explain why you want to do this? (That may lead to an
> alternative suggestion to solve the issue.) Of course, if it's just
> "I'm curious if it would work" that's fine too.
> I wonder if there's a fuse fs to layer on top of FAT and provide
> closer-to-Unix semantics including permissions. But that may not solve
> the problem you're trying to solve.
I’m running under the blackberry 10 (qnx). There is no root access to
manually mount filesystems, there is a fuse bundled (but if i’m not mistaken,
i need to be root to use it too?), the internal storage space is limited, so i want
to move tree on external card, but only fat/exfat formatted cards are mounted.
> I would suggest that you set PKG_DEBUG_LEVEL=1 in mk.conf, and then try
> to do various operations, like "make show-depends" and
> "make show-vars VARNAMES=PKGNAME».
Thanks! I’ll see.
> If that doesn't work, then other than debugging it yourself you could
> post the output (or put it up and send a link). Make sure to include OS
> type and version, cpu, etc.
> Also please try building packages from
> pkgsrc on a real filesystem also (but with the same WRKDIR and so on
> settings), and explain if that works.
Yes, this is the only way it currently works :) Same settings.
> If there's a change to make this work, and it doesn't harm using real
> unix filesystems, and isn't gross, we're fairly likely to take it. But
> using FAT is sufficiently irregular that the threshold for a change
> causing harm or being aesthetically displeasing is pretty low :-)
Main Index |
Thread Index |