Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 07:11, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Friday 08 August 2003 13:44, Joe Baker wrote: > > Two and a half years ago I was enchanted with Mandrake Linux. The > > release cycles were much faster and more bold at using the latest > > versions of the applications that people wanted at the time. She > > was feature rich and still leads the pack in the installation > > many categories. I'm always pleasantly delighted that I can design > > and implement such a complicated filesystem layout including > > elements of the Logical Volume Manager, Raid and my choice of all > > the big file systems that are out there today - Right from the > > installer menu! > > > > My point is this... I want Mandrake to offer Portage for access to the > > latest application compiling. > > > > Portage is being made available for Mac's OS X, and the Cygwin project > > on Windows. > > > > Portage is one of the best development tools to come along under the > > GPL banner. Even BSD "Ports" fans are envious of Portage. > > Well, this probabaly isn't the best time to bring this up with all > > the intense debugging going on and the agressive deadlines that > > you're trying to make. But it is food for thought about the future. > > This integration would set Mandrake apart from all the other distros > > in an amazing way. > > > > Food for thought. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Joe Baker > > President, Digital Communications Research, Inc. > This subjet has been discussed several times earlier, and we've always come to > the conclusion that it's really not worth it, it doesn't really provide any > real advantage in performance and introduces alot of bugs, headaches etcetc.. Maybe my attraction to Gentoo is because of my ignorance of how to develop for RPM. I guess you can use source rpm files and use the --rebuild option and specify the options that you want passed into the compile. > > browse the archives and you'll find several threads on this.. > anyways, why being so obsessed by the *latest* from cvs, latest devel version > etcetc., cooker is usually quite up to date on most areas, and you'd rather > want something that's tested and actually works, don't you? > If I wanted something already tested for me, I would not be here testing the Mandrake Betas. I like to help with testing code. I have a gift for troubleshooting and patience that I can give back to the community. The quicker we can put the latest code in front of people like me, the quicker open source projects can evolve. Hey maybe all I need is a lesson in how to create source rpms. But I tend to believe that the ebuilds in portage are the most efficient way out there. I've seen many developers whom I greatly respect flock to the Gentoo community to provide assistance in doing ebuilds and squashing bugs. Headaches, yes, but they seem to get satisfaction from it in some way because as end users with portage, we can easily test the very latest code before a packager has time to make a package for it. -Joe Baker
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 08 August 2003 13:44, Joe Baker wrote: > Two and a half years ago I was enchanted with Mandrake Linux. The > release cycles were much faster and more bold at using the latest > versions of the applications that people wanted at the time. She > was feature rich and still leads the pack in the installation > many categories. I'm always pleasantly delighted that I can design > and implement such a complicated filesystem layout including > elements of the Logical Volume Manager, Raid and my choice of all > the big file systems that are out there today - Right from the > installer menu! > > My point is this... I want Mandrake to offer Portage for access to the > latest application compiling. > > Portage is being made available for Mac's OS X, and the Cygwin project > on Windows. > > Portage is one of the best development tools to come along under the > GPL banner. Even BSD "Ports" fans are envious of Portage. > Well, this probabaly isn't the best time to bring this up with all > the intense debugging going on and the agressive deadlines that > you're trying to make. But it is food for thought about the future. > This integration would set Mandrake apart from all the other distros > in an amazing way. > > Food for thought. > > Best Regards, > > Joe Baker > President, Digital Communications Research, Inc. This subjet has been discussed several times earlier, and we've always come to the conclusion that it's really not worth it, it doesn't really provide any real advantage in performance and introduces alot of bugs, headaches etcetc.. browse the archives and you'll find several threads on this.. anyways, why being so obsessed by the *latest* from cvs, latest devel version etcetc., cooker is usually quite up to date on most areas, and you'd rather want something that's tested and actually works, don't you? well, my 2 cents.. - -- Regards, Per Øyvind Karlsen Sintrax Solutions http://www.sintrax.net - +47 41681061 - GPG Key: http://sintrax.net/~hawkeye/key.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/M5N7v8F7V9JOSuURAi6ZAKDO2pWpaBs+YlkMg09JTC7zhU/N/ACgr8iE UJ7H4hzYiUp+YtMwJr93/ew= =fz56 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, andre wrote: > On Saturday 09 August 2003 17:20, Buchan Milne wrote: > > I wanted to reply to this one earlier, but gave up after mozilla crashed > > on the half-finished mail .. > You got mozilla working. That is more than most It's been working fine since I started running cooker, although some 1.3.x versions weren't too stable, and the problem with keyboard input is worse now again for some reason (text goes to inactive window for example). Otherwise it works fine for me, mostly (had maybe two crashes since we started using 1.4, and it's open on my cooker box for over 9 hours each day of the week). Regards, Buchan -- |Registered Linux User #182071-| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On 08/09/03 16:36:58, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: I cannot see how this would solve the problem with packages unable to build on older releases, you still have to satisfy those new dependencies, maybe you could try to cut stuff down a little, and only compile in features you want yourself, not linking against libraries you don't need etc... but for what? also think of the nightmare when it comes to bug reporting/solving if everyone were to use different compile options, flags etc. and if this is for making it easier for user joe to use new versions of packages on an old release, I just don't think he's interested in spending a day compiling everything needed for the latest kde.. I didn't say it would be easy, and I didn't say it was necessary. I just said it would be neat if it worked. :-) Austin -- Austin Acton Hon.B.Sc. Synthetic Organic Chemist, Teaching Assistant Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto MandrakeClub Volunteer (www.mandrakeclub.com) homepage: www.groundstate.ca
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On 08/09/03 11:20:13, Buchan Milne wrote: Forget about the performance aspects for a moment, since they are mostly irrelevant, but the package management aspects may be ... There is no concrete evidence that gentoo performs faster than other distros, exept perhaps for a handfull of multimedia applications. In fact, over-optimization often slows down the code: http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=227&page=1 If you forget about the "optimisation" arguments, and think about the time-saving and customisation aspects, I think a tool like Portage for rpm/urpmi would be useful. Just think, we may never see complaints about cooker packages not working on a stable release again! It would be an amazing feature. The only two tricky parts would be: 1. making it 'intelligent' enough to only upgrade the necessary libraries, and not break other packages depending on them 2. extra work for already over-taxed packagers to keep things rebuilding on older/stable versions Austin -- Austin Acton Hon.B.Sc. Synthetic Organic Chemist, Teaching Assistant Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto MandrakeClub Volunteer (www.mandrakeclub.com) homepage: www.groundstate.ca
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 09 August 2003 21:00, Austin wrote: > > If you forget about the "optimisation" arguments, and think about the > > time-saving and customisation aspects, I think a tool like Portage for > > rpm/urpmi would be useful. Just think, we may never see complaints > > about > > cooker packages not working on a stable release again! > > It would be an amazing feature. The only two tricky parts would be: > 1. making it 'intelligent' enough to only upgrade the necessary > libraries, and not break other packages depending on them > 2. extra work for already over-taxed packagers to keep things > rebuilding on older/stable versions I cannot see how this would solve the problem with packages unable to build on older releases, you still have to satisfy those new dependencies, maybe you could try to cut stuff down a little, and only compile in features you want yourself, not linking against libraries you don't need etc... but for what? also think of the nightmare when it comes to bug reporting/solving if everyone were to use different compile options, flags etc. and if this is for making it easier for user joe to use new versions of packages on an old release, I just don't think he's interested in spending a day compiling everything needed for the latest kde.. - -- Regards, Per Øyvind Karlsen Sintrax Solutions http://www.sintrax.net - +47 41681061 - GPG Key: http://sintrax.net/~hawkeye/key.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/NVtsv8F7V9JOSuURAmCGAJ4vRP3y5eW68EL/KGrLhxZsyPBMLQCeP40R t9EgIzui3IMon6nMBeelxMc= =TuNp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 09 August 2003 16:55, Leon Brooks wrote: > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 20:11, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > > cooker is > > usually quite up to date on most areas, and you'd rather want > > something that's tested and actually works, don't you? > > Sorry - "tested and actually works" isn't fitting very well inside my > head with "cooker". (-: > > Cheers; Leon well, the purpose of cooker is to test our own packages, using stable versions, if we were to use cvs and unstable/devel releases, it would be a hell, also code always changing, it's hard for the maintainer to keep it up. - -- Regards, Per Øyvind Karlsen Sintrax Solutions http://www.sintrax.net - +47 41681061 - GPG Key: http://sintrax.net/~hawkeye/key.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/NVoJv8F7V9JOSuURAh/6AKCKD/kUKGK3aiA46gtZkXreshM3RACdGOlV DF9IlfYZp01VzcnDe8fp8XM= =6qSP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On Saturday 09 August 2003 17:20, Buchan Milne wrote: > I wanted to reply to this one earlier, but gave up after mozilla crashed > on the half-finished mail .. You got mozilla working. That is more than most
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 20:11, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > cooker is > usually quite up to date on most areas, and you'd rather want > something that's tested and actually works, don't you? Sorry - "tested and actually works" isn't fitting very well inside my head with "cooker". (-: Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
I wanted to reply to this one earlier, but gave up after mozilla crashed on the half-finished mail .. On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Per [iso-8859-1] Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Friday 08 August 2003 13:44, Joe Baker wrote: > > Two and a half years ago I was enchanted with Mandrake Linux. The > > release cycles were much faster and more bold at using the latest > > versions of the applications that people wanted at the time. She > > was feature rich and still leads the pack in the installation > > many categories. I'm always pleasantly delighted that I can design > > and implement such a complicated filesystem layout including > > elements of the Logical Volume Manager, Raid and my choice of all > > the big file systems that are out there today - Right from the > > installer menu! > > > > My point is this... I want Mandrake to offer Portage for access to the > > latest application compiling. > > I don't necessarily think it is necessary to hve portage itself, possibly a port to rpm/urpmi? > > Portage is being made available for Mac's OS X, and the Cygwin project > > on Windows. > > Mainly because they didn't really have package management tools equal to apt or urpmi or even rpm. > > Portage is one of the best development tools to come along under the > > GPL banner. Even BSD "Ports" fans are envious of Portage. > > Well, this probabaly isn't the best time to bring this up with all > > the intense debugging going on and the agressive deadlines that > > you're trying to make. But it is food for thought about the future. > > This integration would set Mandrake apart from all the other distros > > in an amazing way. > > > > Food for thought. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Joe Baker > > President, Digital Communications Research, Inc. > This subjet has been discussed several times earlier, and we've always come to > the conclusion that it's really not worth it, it doesn't really provide any > real advantage in performance Forget about the performance aspects for a moment, since they are mostly irrelevant, but the package management aspects may be ... > and introduces alot of bugs, headaches etcetc.. > browse the archives and you'll find several threads on this.. > anyways, why being so obsessed by the *latest* from cvs, latest devel version > etcetc., Because in some cases: -you may be developing from CVS, why not have tools to help manage your software built from CVS -the software in CVS may be useable, just not feature-complete or the documentation may not be complete I build weekly snapshot RPMs for 9.1 of grass from CVS (grass51), and I have had over 28 downloads of some snapshots, indicating that people running a stable release may be interested in selected software that may not be released yet. In some cases, such software may be in cooker, but then you may have to endure instability in other software you only want to use. For instance, to have geotiff support in the stable release of gdal, you need a beta of libtiff-3.6. > cooker is usually quite up to date on most areas, But what about stable releases? Sure, it's normally trivial to rebuild something from cooker, and probably most people running cooker have a stable system they run some rebuilds from cooker on. So, would it not be useful to reduce the amount of time cookers spend rebuilding software from cooker on stable releases? > and you'd rather > want something that's tested and actually works, don't you? And who is going to test it if it's not packaged? Only the people who are prepared to build from source, and if more than (say) 4 people do this, we're wasting man-hours. Imagine if you could setup cooker as a "source" media in urpmi, and if a dependency is not met by your "stable" source, it installed all the buildrequires (of course, some setup with sudo for urpmi would be required), downloaded the SRPM and rebuilt it for you, and installed the resulting rpm? And say some buildrequires weren't satisfied, it could build them too. And say it had support for building with a spec file from Mandrake's CVS, then you could pick versions which no longer exist in cooker too. You could also have hdlists generated, and the location of the final RPMs referenced as a binary urpmi media for other machines of the same release. And what if you don't like the options that are default in a package? If standard macros were adopted (say _use_, for example _use_ldap), and packages where this distinction is useful were modified to use them correctly, it would be trivial to install packages with the features you want. If you forget about the "optimisation" arguments, and think about the time-saving and customisation aspects, I think a tool like Portage for rpm/urpmi would be useful. Just think, we may never see complaints about cooker packages not working on a stable release again! Regards, Buchan -- |Registered Linux User #182071-|
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Per [iso-8859-1] Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Saturday 09 August 2003 21:00, Austin wrote: > > > > It would be an amazing feature. The only two tricky parts would be: > > 1. making it 'intelligent' enough to only upgrade the necessary > > libraries, and not break other packages depending on them Well, the logic would be to only upgrade to a package provided by a "source" medium if there was none provided by a "binary" medium. > > 2. extra work for already over-taxed packagers to keep things > > rebuilding on older/stable versions Well, one could always make the pre-condition that bug reports on source packages can only be accpeted with a patch to fix the problem, without affecting any other releases (ie place the responsibility on the user when using source packages, since they basically have it now anyway). > I cannot see how this would solve the problem with packages unable to build on > older releases, you still have to satisfy those new dependencies, Which would be resolved for you, by upgrading or installing a new depdency. > maybe you > could try to cut stuff down a little, and only compile in features you want > yourself, not linking against libraries you don't need etc... but for what? Well, I think it might be an idea to consider making it so a user can choose once which features he wants (ie someone may want no ldap depedencies ever). But again, it would be optional, and the user wanting this would supply the necessary patch. > also think of the nightmare when it comes to bug reporting/solving if > everyone > were to use different compile options, flags etc. The other condition for bug reports on source packages could be that they have been tested at standard optimisations. > and if this is for making it easier for user joe to use new versions of > packages on an old release, I just don't think he's interested in spending a > day compiling everything needed for the latest kde.. If he was going to do it anyway, and it only takes 10 minutes of *his* time (and 47 hours 50 minutes for his computer over the weekend while he is away doing something else), we've easily saved a lot of time. The one issue is that it may encourage packagers to think more carefully (and read docs in packages) when setting buildrequires, but I think that is a good thing. IMHO: -this would be very useful to a lot of people on this list (ie not just a gimmick) -it could be a lot of work -if policies were set correctly, maintainers would only need apply changes submitted to them. Oh yes, there is onemore complication, figuring out which SRPM builds a package BuildRequire'd by another SRPM ... Time to get to know perl::URPM I fear ... Regards, Buchan -- |Registered Linux User #182071-| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] Portage for Mandrake?
On 08/09/03 17:36:36, Buchan Milne wrote: Time to get to know perl::URPM I fear ... I shudder to think of it. Austin -- Austin Acton Hon.B.Sc. Synthetic Organic Chemist, Teaching Assistant Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto MandrakeClub Volunteer (www.mandrakeclub.com) homepage: www.groundstate.ca
