Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] implement isar-bootstrap using debootstrap

[Alexander Smirnov <asmirnov@ilbers.de>]

On 03/14/2018 05:14 PM, Claudius Heine wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 13:38 +0300, Alexander Smirnov wrote:
>> On 03/14/2018 12:52 PM, Claudius Heine wrote:
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 11:56 +0300, Alexander Smirnov wrote:
>>>> On 03/07/2018 07:44 PM, claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Claudius Heine <ch@denx.de>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since multistrap is deprecated for some years, it is required
>>>>> to
>>>>> change
>>>>> to debootstrap.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch introduces the 'isar-bootstrap' recipe that
>>>>> implement
>>>>> the
>>>>> creation of a minimal base root file system using debootstrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you use term 'bootstrap'? It's completely different topic
>>>> than
>>>> debootstrap.
>>>
>>> Because I want to be implementation independent. If for some reason
>>> someone wants to change the name of the tool again (I know its not
>>> to
>>> be expected), this way only the implementation of the isar-
>>> bootstrap
>>> needs to be changed.
>>> In theory with an alternative implementation of some interfaces
>>> other
>>> distribution could be supported. I don't know in which direction
>>> isar
>>> will go, but binding your interface names to tightly to the name of
>>> some third-party products is not a good idea.
>>>
>>> What I tried is called loose coupling and that is generally seen as
>>> a
>>> good software design pattern.
>>>
>>>>    According to the wiki:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianBootstrap#Bootstrapping
>>>>
>>>> Bootstraping is a process of creation Debian from zero to a full
>>>> archive.
>>>
>>> The word "bootstrapping" is used in many projects and generally
>>> describes starting something from almost nothing. Also this
>>> patchset
>>> doesn't use "DebianBootstrap" is uses "isar-bootstrap".
>>
>> In this case just do not use terms from Debian world.
> 
> I didn't. I use 'isar-bootstrap' and neither it nor its parts 'isar'
> nor 'bootstrap' is a term that is exclusively used with Debian.
> 
> 'bootstrap' is a common term in computer science with many different
> meaning. If someone heard 'bootstrap' only used by the Debian project
> before, that that is their problem. I think I heard it first in some
> projects as the 'bootstrap.sh' shell script that takes care about
> initializing the build environment correctly. I might have been a bit
> confused when I heard that they also describe the first compilation of
> compiler by an other one written in a different language as
> bootstrapping, but that might just be because English is my second
> language.
> 
>>   It would be enough
>> to name it like 'base-rootfs'. That's for example, how 'buildchroot'
>> term was invented, to avoid intersections with 'sysroot' and
>> 'buildroot'.
> 
> 'sysroot' and 'buildroot' are names that where invented by someone,
> 'bootstrap' is a word, like 'face' or 'book'. I don't automatically
> think of 'facebook' just because I read the word 'book' or 'face' in
> some other context.
> 
> Personally I don't like to add another '*base*' thing to isar. We

I didn't ask to use it, I only tried to describe the idea. Whatever else 
could be used, but without intersections with Debian.

> already have 'isar-image-base' and 'dpkg-base'. And this recipe is
> should not be used as a 'base' to be included or inherited upon like
> the others. So 'base-roofs' as a recipe name does not fit IMO.
> 
> (Also when I hear 'base' I think about numbers and get very confused ;)
> 
> I still prefer 'isar-bootstrap' since its output should be what of some
>   kind of distro-specific system bootstrap machanism, like debootstrap,
> febootstrap (now supermin), pacstrap, ..., generates.
> If the distro-specific bootstrap mechanism builds its 'bootstraped root
> file system' from a bunch of binary packages or directly from source is
> implementation and distro specific. So the distinction only makes sense
> in the upstream project but not here, since we are just using what the
> upstream distributions provides for general consumption.

I asked the question, but you cut it, so I'm going to repost the whole 
quote here:

8<--

AFAIK there are 2 kinds opinions in Debian community about bootstraping:
  - Build from sources (DebianBootstrap, rebootstrap)
  - Install from debs (debootstrap)

My question, why it's so important to use initially ambiguous term, 
which may lead to potential confusing for Debian users?

8<--

Alex