sabotage-linux/butch pkgmgr ( in shell/awk)

[mocore]

old C version of package and build manager for sabotage linux, current version is written in shell/awk and can be found in KEEP/bin in the `sabotage` repo.

https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/tree/master/KEEP/bin

i dont remember finding any specifics of which shell / or awk are supported , i suspect similar to tc as afair busybox is used
so perhaps (hopefully) this and other awk based pkg mgr might provide some inspiration
for the  "Sources and Build Scripts x86/x64"  topic and others with similar themes

@Anyone  If creating build notes/scripts, please use the naming convention of extension_filename.tcz.build so they line up with the actual TCZ files.

see also :
- pkutils (*.(g)awk) pkgmgr for Slackware written as an alternative to slackpkg. https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,27036.0.html

---other awk related tangents ---

awk.dev - The AWK Programming Language, Second Edition https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,26335.msg169745.html#msg169745

awk pre-processor 's  https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,26490.0.html

awk oddities https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,25301.0.html


if you dont like awk(awk awk awk and awk) (sorry)
... perhaps you might enjoy  python + spam, spam spam spam and spam 
(Monty Python - Spam) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

[mocore]

old C version of package and build manager for sabotage linux, current version is written in shell/awk and can be found in KEEP/bin in the `sabotage` repo.

interesting that sabotage's  package and build manager went from c to awk ,
not shore of their motivations wrt to the change

which reminded me of this suggestion to move from shell/awk to c 
 "tce-load compiled in C for faster boot?" https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,25216.0.html

[mocore]

related topic "Could be [tiny]core improved?" @ https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,17614.0.html

So, I discovered sabotage distribution: https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage
The concepts I like about it are:
- compiling the kernel without using perl (it was possible for few years).
- static link the core tools (busybox); less exposure to attacks, easier chroot/sandbox on the fly.
 (would you like chroot from 64 bits into 32 bits, run sandboxed browser, or install 32 bits tcz aka syslinux)
- smaler auxiliar libs: (libnl-tiny?); libnl-tiny is known to work without issues with at least: iw, wpa-supplicant, kismet, aircrack-ng, libpcap
- simple package and build manager, ala archlinux pacman AUR repository; so both the core AND the tcz extensions could be scripted if you are security concerned about alien (not exposed) tcz recipes..

I like the freedom of (better) alternatives:
- to use llvm vs gcc (gcc is surviving because it is still the only one who can compile the full kernel)
- smaller C libs, like musl (not uclib) vs glibc.
- smaller core tools (like toybox vs busybox partial/total replacment ?). Imagine even a static compiled busybox (with musl) and part of tinycore rootfs64.gz is the same as rootfs32.gz, because any CPU (32/64 bits) can run same code. core.gz= commonFs.tools +libs.spec+ modules.

I am just skimming the top of the iceberg...would you like a recipe for a controlled build firefox?
https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/pkg/firefox