On Tue, 21.10.14 18:33, Colin Walters ([email protected]) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 07:38 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > Yes. Correctly. The hash-tree stuff, that is verified on access. > > That's actually very cool if it was directly in the FS - it has the > potential to be a lot more efficient and dynamic. Does it really exist > yet or just planned? All I can see of this is: > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/34667
It's vaporware as of now. We have been talking about this a couple of times with Chris and he says he's working on it, but no public code exists. > > Well, the "framework" concept I suggested should really include gcc, > > gdb, strace and all those things. It should be the real deal, that > > allows you to develop stuff. > > I think the reality is that the packaging model won because you really > do start to want unions. GNOME's sdk could include strace and gdb, > sure...but what do you do when you need to debug the interpreter of your > Python/Ruby/whatever web app? And for that matter, > > Even then, the set of all profiling/debugging tools is so varied; e..g > does the SDK include /usr/bin/perf (incidentally an app that actually > comes with the kernel...) Well, I think GNOME should stick everything it wants to support in one runtime, and that would include the C libs and python, and hence would also mean including both the debugging tools for C and for python in the matching framework. GNOME should be careful what to support though. For example, supporting Ruby-GNOME in the official runtime is something I would be really careful with because it would mean supporting it for a long time, and that might not be something GNOME would really be willing to do. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ gnome-os-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-os-list
