On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Phillip Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Steven Jenkins > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Phillip Moore >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Nothing to fix -- part of bootstrapping the compilers is defining >>> those releasealiases, since I do *NOT* bundle them with the uploaded >>> efsdeploy builds. The upload process only includes releasealiases >>> which are substr's of the actual release string. >> >> What needs to happen to change that? ie, efs_bootstrap_content fails >> because of the missing releaselink. I know enough to be able to work >> past it, but a newcomer to EFS needs the process to be more >> streamlined. > > A rethinking of the upload/download process, really. Releasealiases > that are not substrs of the release can not and should not be included > in the upload packages because they are intended to be managed > per-site (eg. the efs/core/dev and efs/core/prod releasealiases and > their ilk fall into this category). > > But realistically, what potential newcomers to EFS do you envision? > In 3 years since this product has been available, NOONE has shown any > serious interest in it outside of the two firms that run this > infrastructure already (my current employer and yours -- noone else > cares). >
I think there are a few people out there who would at least play with EFS if it were easy to set up. But no one has approached me personally in at least a year. > I suspect the return on the investment for additional streamlining of > this bootstrap process is minimal. I'd suggest simply documenting a > workaround for the missing releasealiases, perhaps by documenting the > steps necessary to build up the compiler environment. That's a fair point. I'll make a note in the docs. Steven _______________________________________________ EFS-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev
