> Mr. Summerfield,
> You are making an assertion that is not borne out by the facts. The fact is
> that
> somebody did release an RPM based upon our code (check the mailing-list archi
> ves
> if you want proof). The fact is that since plex86 has gotten more publicity
> the
> number of user-level questions has gone up. The fact is that most of the tra
> ffic
> on this list concerning RPM's has been about why we don't have any RPM's rele
> ased,
> officially, on our web site.
Of course, if you provide them those questions will go away.
The packaging has to be tested just as everything else has to be tested.
By all means, include "pre-beta" or similar in the name to highlight that it's not
production quality.
If it's packaged, then you can be sure that those using the package are using it in
a standard way, at least to the point it's installed.
> The fact is that this is still alpha-quality co
> de,
> not yet fodder for an RPM release--or even another CVS snapshot. The fact is
> that
> even if there were an RPM for the people asking user-level questions, it woul
> d not
> help them. In fact, it might make support more difficult by muddling importa
> nt
> issues in the already raging battle between the distributions of LINUX--a bat
> tle
> those of us who have been here for a while agreed not to fight back in mid 20
> 00.
I've said nothing about different distributions, but odds are that and rpm created
for RHL 6.0 would install on the four major distros.
> (As a side note, many of the questions have been about the config files, and
> about
> the disk images--or the lack thereof. These are not issues that an RPM could
> fix
> unless it included a disk image containing the OS you wish to install--which
> is
> clearly outside of the liberties allowed by law here in the US--and last time
> I checked, in Europe also; unless that OS was LINUX.....)
Again, putting standard config files into the rpm would reduce these problems.
I've said nothing about an executable disk image either, but surely Linux isn't the
only option.. Assorted BSDs come to mind;-).
There is, of course, FreeDOS.
It would be nice to be able to install the package and run something. Doesn't matter
a lot what that something is: toms root boot disk would do. Or IBM's drive fitness
test. You might not be allowed di distribute it (but IBM would probably allow it),
but you surely can give folk a script that downloads it.
It's a 1.4 mbyte floppy image containing PCDOS 2000 and tools for checking IBM
drives. It won't do much, but it would surely encourage new users that something
works.
> Those of us on the project who have been working on it since the begining
> understand the wish to have a readily user-accessible package available, but
> this
> is not the time. Please respect our decision. When it is felt by the majori
> ty in
> the group, and by the developers, that plex86 is ready for an RPM, *.deb, or
> *.tgz
> (package or tarball) release, we will do so. Until then we are keeping the c
> ode
> up on CVS for development purposes.
>
> Can you deliver a clear and pointed argument as to if--and if so why--what we
> are
> doing is somehow fundamentally wrong?
1) By your own admission, you already have quite a few people who've had trouble
getting it working.
1a) You agree there's a significant effort responding to those problems.
2) You agree that packaging needs to be done.
I contend that the work getting it packaged is pretty much the same whether you do
it now or in six months' time.
If you do it now, and have a script (or Makefile target), then keeping on producing
new packages at regular intervals is pretty trivial.
If you do it now, then when your product is ready to publish an official version,
you will have the procedures in place and proven to work to do that.
If you do it now, and you get it wrong, people will tell you and you will be able to
fix it well ahead of when it really matters.
If you do it now and you get it right, there will be no reason to talk about
packaging any more. John Smith will be able to download it, and in an xterm window,
type something like:
rpm --upgrade plex86...
plex86dos
and see DOS boot in the xterm window.
If John has a problem, you can ask him if he can produce the problem with the sample
filesystem provided. If he can, then you too should be able to reproduce the problem
using the same binaries, the same filesystem and the same configuration.
Instead of yelling at everyone with a different POV, ask yourself, "Is there some
merit in this?"
I ask myself that of your view, and I see little justification.
I'm not always "right" but I do have over 30 years' experience to support me.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://www2.ami.com.au/ for OS/2 & linux information.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/
Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
