All - I just realized that right now is the perfect time to start discussing big next steps such as these. With any luck, we might be able to turn some of these ideas into GSoC projects.
David On Jan 22, 2012 9:13 PM, "chm" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/22/2012 9:45 PM, David Mertens wrote: > >> To all - >> >> I've changed the original subject. I hope this doesn't bother anybody too >> much. >> > > Subject change is ok, but you dropped the thread > so users don't see the earlier part of this > discussion to which this appears to be a response. > > The first: > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: PDL book checking >> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:18:32 -0500 >> From: chm <[email protected]> >> To: Matthew Kenworthy <[email protected]> >> CC: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> >> On 1/22/2012 3:57 PM, Matthew Kenworthy wrote: >> >>> >>>> I forgot to point out that =ff is just what is >>>> needed to put page breaks at the start of each >>>> chapter... >>>> >>>> >>>> Ah! Good to know :) >>> >>> I'm confused. Yes, the plan was to have a PDL::Book >>>> distribution, which, by definition, would include the >>>> PDL::Book. >>>> >>>> >>>> I thought the ultimate idea was to put PDL::Book into the PDL-2.4.10 >>> tarball, but the discussion about the sizes of the included images nixed >>> that idea. YOu can revive the diea by having PDL::Book only have text and >>> image generating scripts. I think that your point is to keep PDL::Book a >>> separate distribution entirely, which is where our confusion comes in. >>> >> >> OK. There seems to be an enormous amount of >> interest in "putting" the PDL Book into the >> PDL distribution. >> >> While it _seems_ simple to just add it into >> the current "kitchen sink" PDL has, the reality >> is that if PDL were split into a core distribution >> and a number of other, separate, distributions >> corresponding to the external dependencies, we >> would be *much* better off: >> >> (1) The core would already be 100% ported since >> it is mostly the external libraries and programs >> that are difficult to get working consistently >> across all platforms. >> >> For example, a win32 PDL still takes >> significant guru expertise to do. I *still* >> can't do it. Although, if I took the time, >> I could follow Rob's instructions and build >> it eventually... >> >> We work around that through Rob's generosity >> to build and make available up-to-date PPD >> versions of PDL CPAN releases, including the >> latest developers release. >> >> (2) Code improvement in PDL modules could happen >> faster without having to wait for the entire >> PDL distribution. By releasing frequent git >> snapshots as developers releases, I've been >> able to reduce some of the impact of this. >> >> However, the developers releases are even >> farther from 1-click installs then the CPAN >> official releases. >> >> (3) The full on, kitchen sink version of PDL >> could still be bundled up and distributed >> as a single distribution rather than the >> possibly dicey use of cpan or cpanm to >> build all the dependencies correctly. >> >> (4) For similar reasons, having the PDL-Book-0.0.1 >> distribution works better: more frequent or >> needed updates can be made as required, issues >> of format generation and image generation will >> continue to be worked out, a book isn't the >> same thing as on-line help or documentation >> (although they could be viewed with the same >> utilities),... >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> And, I should add, at this point, this is a Good Idea. >>> >>> The issue of generating the figures occurred to >>> >>>> me when I saw that the full size image looked >>>> fine but that the scaled html image had lines >>>> that were too thin and hard to see. It would >>>> be better to have a separate NxN for HTML and >>>> 800x800 for PDF output. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hmm, I think that good displayable single source images are possible >>> with >>> HardLW=>5 and HardCH=>2 for illustrations. But that's something for the >>> release after this upcoming one! >>> >>> Matt >>> >> > And the second, additional points: > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Perldl] PDL book checking >> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:10:11 +0100 >> From: Henning Glawe <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 04:18:32PM -0500, chm wrote: >> >>> While it _seems_ simple to just add it into >>> the current "kitchen sink" PDL has, the reality >>> is that if PDL were split into a core distribution >>> and a number of other, separate, distributions >>> corresponding to the external dependencies, we >>> would be *much* better off: >>> >>> (1) The core would already be 100% ported since >>> [ ... ] >>> (4) For similar reasons, having the PDL-Book-0.0.1 >>> >> >> With my Debian Developer's hat on (those points mainly refer >> to the 'bleeding edge' of debian development, i.e. >> testing/unstable): >> >> (5) a problem with a single dependency would not kick all of pdl >> and all packages it depends on from our testing branch, >> which has happened recently due to portability problems with plplot. >> (6) Less problems with SONAME transitions, as only the relevant >> interface module packages would need to be updated. >> (7) Easier/more reliable way to automatically create package >> dependency lists (each interface module depends on the >> corresponding library packages). As mentioned recently on this >> list, the dependency list of debian's pdl package is a bit >> long; I have to do the splitting into depends, suggests >> and recommends manually, that's maybe why a bit too much >> slipped through... this would be a lot easier if we had >> a 'core' with minimal external dependencies and interface >> distributions. >> >> -- >> c u >> henning >> > > And this reply (in context): > >> This is a well-worn discussion. The last time this was thoroughly >> discussed >> was on the porters list: see the porters' archives starting from October >> 31, 2009, and running into November. These are from the days when I spent >> a >> lot of effort stirring the pot, and a bit less at actually writing code. >> [Note: November 2009 has one of the largest collection messages in the >> archives, and my pot stirring has been bested by no less than the great >> Daniel Carrera, whose ability to stir a pot (and get docs and code >> written) >> still impresses me.] I have since repented my lack of code writing and >> I've >> tried hard to focus more on writing code and less on stirring pots. If you >> don't believe me, just wait for PDL::Graphics::Prima. :-) >> >> Back in late 2009 when we last discussed this, nearly everybody was in >> favor of splitting PDL into multiple pieces. Judd Taylor voiced a >> dissenting opinion, stating that PDL needs to have a large collection of >> numerical capabilities built-in so that it appeals to new folks. If people >> have to install lots of modules to get what they want, they'll just walk >> away. He also claimed that the lack of an install-everywhere 2D plotting >> library was a big issue. Read his email and others' responses to get a >> fuller picture: >> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.**edu/pipermail//pdl-porters/** >> 2009-November/001617.html<http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/pipermail//pdl-porters/2009-November/001617.html> >> >> These days, I stand by my original statement, that PDL would be best >> served >> split into many smaller pieces. BioPerl underwent a similar transitions a >> few years ago, and many major frameworks (Test comes to mind) were built >> like this from the ground up, providing a simple core upon which others >> can >> build. We are a Perl technology, and I believe we would do well to embrace >> the current trend in Perl modules to provide simpler distributions that >> target specific goals. >> >> I see two issues: >> >> 1) Quality Assurance. Whenever somebody makes a change to the core, they >> run the *whole* test suite. If we split the core, changes made in one >> component will not be easily tested against other components. Solutions >> include (1) CPAN testers, which should be able to pick out bad >> interactions >> within a few days to a week, and (2) a continuous integration server >> specifically for PDL. For the latter, jitterbug, a Perl-based continuous >> integration system comes to mind. It would be amazing, it would take time >> to set up, and it would cost $$ to host the server unless somebody out >> there has a box sitting idle on a static IP. (Lately I have been thinking >> about purchasing a $7/month VPS for this very idea, and for hosting the >> IRC >> bot.) >> >> 2) Knowing where to find things. If we split things up, we must have >> documentation about where to find information about different PDL >> capabilities. This is all the more important if users are installing PDL, >> and need to know what to install. Installation itself is becoming much >> easier with local::lib, perlbrew, and the Alien packages (shout out to >> Joel >> for his recent work on Alien::Base). The current docs are not very tied >> together and may not give the user and idea of where (in monolithic PDL) >> where to look, but they do have an Index document that knows about all the >> installed modules. The solution to this is simple, but hard: write better >> docs that make thorough references to what's out there. >> >> I believe that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs, but the greatest >> missing piece is commitment by PDL porters and users to make it happen. >> Back then, I began working on Module::Build::PDL, but I lost steam when I >> was told that M::B::PDL would have to build the entire PDL distribution. I >> have since figured out that what I had accomplished with M::B::PDL can be >> as easily achieved using Module::Build with well crafted .pm.PL files. My >> opinion is now this: if we can't achieve our split of PDL into pieces that >> M::B can handle, then the pieces are still too big. >> >> So, here's what I say: let us kvetch! We will move forward with 2.4.10 and >> the close follow-up of 2.4.11, but everybody should lay out their thoughts >> about splitting up PDL (or not). After the dust has settled, as 2.4.11 is >> taking form, those us of who are truly interested can re-read the >> discussion and decide how to move forward. In particular, I would *love* >> to >> send out another survey, this time asking about what people want and *how >> many hours people are willing to commit to make it happen.* >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Perldl mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.**edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl<http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
