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

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2018-03-14 07:25, Alexander Smirnov wrote:
> 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<--

I hope we can settle on this topic quickly, specifically as this
internal naming of classes are not really user-facing.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux