> I read the minix3 docs, maybe I can compile it. But I don't know how
> to build a file system and make a bootable iso. That is the most
> important part.
You can download the iso images of Minix at www.minix3.org/download
and use them directly for installing Minix. If you want to dive
deeper, you can have a look at /usr/src/tools/release.sh in the Minix
source code. .
Regards,
~
Vivek Prakash
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM, thinker <cnh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> More specifically, assuming that I only have the minix3 source code
> and a ubuntu system,
> how can I build a minix system ?
You are talking about cross compilation of Minix here. You can
certainly have a look at
http://wiki.minix3.org/en/DevelopersGuide/NewBuildSystem . A
discussion on mailing list can be found at
http://groups.google.com/group/minix3/browse_thread/thread/56588fc81f593fb2/d0e7fea89a3ca9b2
. There are few other discussions regarding it on the google group
which you can find by searching it.
Regards,
~
Vivek Prakash
Regards,
~
Vivek Prakash
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "minix3" group.
To post to this group, send email to min...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minix3+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minix3?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "minix3" group.
To post to this group, send email to min...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minix3+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minix3?hl=en.
IIRC there was no interest in this project at all :( T.
There are a number of things to say about that.
First, as pointed out by Erik and Thomas, you really need to prove it
can be done: MINIX project resources are so scarce that they cannot
divert them just to help you (of course, proving it can be done is just
a part of the job, it does not guarantee it will be incorporated later.)
Also creating the ISO9660 image is just a little part of producing a
self-contained MINIX system.
But my main question is, why is writeisofs bad, and should be replaced
by mkisofs?
Okay, using mkisofs will make your cross-compiling a little bit easier,
on your set-up. Perhaps it would make it easier (by just a little bit)
for other people too; certainly not everybody though.
Then there is something which is worrying me, but I can only speculate
as I do not know mkisofs enough to be sure: can mkisofs as it stands
create the special ISO image that is using MINIX (with two file system
images and a partition table pointing to them embedded in first quarter
of sector 0, which is otherwise reserved; this is the small change you
are referring above.)
I agree that /usr might probably be a iso9660 file system instead
(another small change), but I do not think it would be that easy with /
And if by chance you end with a custom version of mkisofs for MINIX,
then will face the same problem than we have with e.g. GRUB: your custom
copy and their patches are MINIX-specific, so require special versions
of the otherwise basic tools: this effectively nullifies a fair part of
the possible advantages to drop the ad-hoc MINIX tools.
As I said, these are pure speculations. But I feel this should be make
clear before anybody start looking into changing the build process (and
the setup process) to use mkisofs instead of writeisofs.
Antoine