On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 08:42:07AM +0200, Jacques Nilo wrote: >Georges: >If you do not feel confortable using Bering, please do not use it. >Bering has been developped by me and Eric as a hobby, on our spare time & >outside of our regular jobs.
I do feel it is an innovative quality project. Please don't take my criticism personally. I really intended my remarks as constructive criticism. I don't want this thread to get out of hand so I'll refrain from adding details and focus on being as constructive as I can. What invoked my letter was realization that I needed to script a package extractor/compressor and that many of the hurdles I have overcome would have been much easier if the distro (and I should speak only of Bering, because I need the 2.4 kernel, and it's the only leaf I've used.) was presented differently. For example, as a tgz that extracts into an expanded root filesystem (or root file system for each package; not sure which would work) and scripts to make the packages and make a floppy image with a new timestamp. This would afford quick maintenance and modifications in a full environment. I will likely put this together from scratch if none of the components already exist to do this. (BTW - I am very pro opensource/GNU and don't feel the need to keep under wraps any of my work, accept that which might be a direct conflict of interest with my employer. I can't imagine being involved with any software-for-sale project, either. I didn't mean, "I'm here to enforce GNU" as much as I meant, "This GPL project seems different then other GPL projects I've worked on, it's difficult to customize the package.) >A lot of a effort has been put in the doc: see the installation & user's >guide. Most of technical related questions are answered (if time permits) >with the help of the LEAF community through the mailing list. A developer's >manual is on my todo list but it also a fact that people are for some >strange reason always quicker to criticize that to help writing up a chapter >of the user's guide ... I'm sorry. I know this is true. Maybe I can contribute some doc at some point in the near future. I have picked up and set down some version of LRP several times in the last ~18 months, always with the feeling of being overwhelmed with links to sites of documentation which ultimately didn't answer my question. It was your guide Jacques, that has been the most helpful. I didn't mean to make any point regarding doc beyond that a 100 line quick start would be really helpful: some definitions, anomalies, intro to package format and image manipulation -- just the sundry facts, what to do without the details of how it's done. I would provide it today if I could, but maybe in a few weeks :) I will try to fully address everyone else's opinions of my post soon; but after reading them I would like to briefly say, 1) criticism (and not necessarily constructive criticism) is an important aspect of opensource development and peer review, and does not necessarily correlate with gratitude. And 2) I see personal attacks in public forum shortsighted and hypocritical. Bon Bastille Day! (my French is almost nonexistent but for those celebrating, I wish you a joyous independence) Regards, // George > >Le Samedi 13 Juillet 2002 07:55, George Georgalis a écrit : >> Is Bering GNU? >> >> I'm beginning to have my doubts. Where is /usr/src/linux/.config? Where >> are the other compile time options for other binaries? Just how was >> Bering_1.0-rc3_img_bering_1680.bin made? >> >> After spending a good part of a week, and _all_ day Friday getting up a >> Bering router before a deadline -- subsequently missing the first day of >> a conference http://h2k2.org -- I looked back at what was the problem. I >> discovered I was hacking around a product (the Bering image) much like >> the manner of before I used Linux. I have this disk image, that I mount >> to find, compressed archives, containing finely tailored scripts and a >> handful of binaries. Together they make up the GNU Bering. (And maybe >> other leaf versions as well.) >> >> I have hunted all over http://leaf-project.org and >> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ for the source, or even a file that says >> version xx.yy.zz of busybox was compiled with the following patch and >> compile time options. Or maybe a tgz of the /usr/local/src/bering where >> the image was made? Nothing. I find myself writing scripts to extract >> and compress lrp files. Surely everyone doesn't gzip -c9 what they made >> by tar cf after mounting and extracting their first floppy image? Is >> this the intended way to indoctrinate new developers to the old school? >> >> I even asked a few well read LUG groups what the lrp format was, or >> how I could run the lrcfg that I read about without actually booting >> the distro. Nobody knew because the design is not conducive to group >> development, it's intended use is like that of proprietary software -- >> take the binary, configure it with the configuration menu and be like >> everyone else. >> >> Okay, I just found the developer.rtf and scanned the whole thing. >> Formidable task, but I only see part of the forest and none of the >> trees. I already know linux and there seem to be some very specific LRP >> details in there, but will it be done before it's out of date? I'm >> not saying produce a `./configure && make && make image` but if the >> environment for building the release was published, or easier to find, >> I'm sure there would be a lot more community support. At one point I >> kicked myself for not looking in CVS before, but when I got in there, >> was in disbelief -- no source, only doc. >> >> So now I have problems with my image to resolve, why do those Belkin >> cards detect as reltek under RH but, none of the Bering modules will >> work with them??? How will I ever get my tulips back from my boss so I >> can test an image at home? What am I going to do about making an image >> and quickly changing a few parameters (ssh host keys, network, firewall >> and other site information) or major structure (LaBera, ppp, ipsec, >> dns) without spending a ton of time hand extracting and compressing >> components? I'm going to make my own distribution. reBering. Complete >> with scripts to mount and extract all the subcomponents, global >> configure, mix'n'match packages, compress and unmount. Only I don't >> think I can call it GNU because since I'm in a hurry, I won't have time >> to reverse engineer the compile time options and source. I'd rather work >> on putting it on an eprom anyway. >> >> In all sincerity, Bering is very cool. It could just be a lot better >> if it was more in the spirit of _encouraging_ open source development >> rather than barley qualifying, actually I bet if it was audited, it >> wouldn't pass. If there are scripts to tar and gzip a lrp package, >> why aren't they part of a tools.tgz right beside package_src.tgz and >> compile_configs.tgz next to the Leaf_UML packages and extraction >> instructions for odd archives? I know asking for doc is a lot, but >> maintaining a file of command lines used to make the binaries from >> source would be an excellent first step. >> >> // George > -- GEORGE GEORGALIS, System Admin/Architect cell: 347-451-8229 Security Services, Web, Mail, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] File, Print, DB and DNS Servers. http://www.galis.org/george ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
