From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 04:40:33 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 360 ************************************************** Thursday 31 October 2002 Number 360 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Roadmap? : Andreas Buening 2 Re: Roadmap? : Andreas Buening 3 Ports : IanM" 4 Re: FTP access, was Some news : Andreas Buening 5 Re: FTP access, was Some news : Andreas Buening 6 Re: Another (similar?) build script system : John Poltorak 7 Re: Another (similar?) build script system : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:24:30 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Roadmap? Jeff Robinson wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I was wondering if there is anything resembling a roadmap for getting > UnixOS2 moving forward? > > I know for a while, there was an incredible amount of activity on this > list but to be honest, I'm not certain at what point we sit right now. > Perhaps mostly what I'm looking for is: > > - What would quantify a 1.0 "release" > - target programs to have compile > - the state of programs needed for a 1.0 release > - if they build, don't build, haven't tried, what needs to be done > - documentation > - Andreas has already laid out a filesystem framework with unixos2_fhs.txt > - porting guidelines/logistics > > It would be interesting to see if something like this could be compiled > so it could be made available via unixos2.com. Perhaps a way that folks > could see what others are working on so we don't double up. This may > also help give a more easily quantifiable way of seeing where we are in > the whole scheme of things. Yes, yes and yes. 200% ACK. > If something like this doesn't exist yet, I could be a likely candidate > for trying to organise this information into something useful. Great. You got the job. :-) Please, contact Ian and tell him what exactly you want to do and what you'll need for this (directory structure/whatever). Adrian made some great suggestions for what could be on the UnixOS/2 website. A lot of these topics had already been discussed on this list but either there was no final conclusion or nobody really remembers what was up. ;-) If it's unclear what the (not really existing) UnixOS/2 standard says about a specific topic, please ask here. Then we'll discuss that topic for the (hopefully) last time. > I think that it is not only useful to see for the folks contributing so > that they can see what is going on, but also from a psychological POV as > it is a bit easier to tell that things are indeed moving forward. You're absolutely right. It's sometimes demotivating to see how nothing seems to happen. Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:24:30 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Roadmap? Jeff Robinson wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I was wondering if there is anything resembling a roadmap for getting > UnixOS2 moving forward? > > I know for a while, there was an incredible amount of activity on this > list but to be honest, I'm not certain at what point we sit right now. > Perhaps mostly what I'm looking for is: > > - What would quantify a 1.0 "release" > - target programs to have compile > - the state of programs needed for a 1.0 release > - if they build, don't build, haven't tried, what needs to be done > - documentation > - Andreas has already laid out a filesystem framework with unixos2_fhs.txt > - porting guidelines/logistics > > It would be interesting to see if something like this could be compiled > so it could be made available via unixos2.com. Perhaps a way that folks > could see what others are working on so we don't double up. This may > also help give a more easily quantifiable way of seeing where we are in > the whole scheme of things. Yes, yes and yes. 200% ACK. > If something like this doesn't exist yet, I could be a likely candidate > for trying to organise this information into something useful. Great. You got the job. :-) Please, contact Ian and tell him what exactly you want to do and what you'll need for this (directory structure/whatever). Adrian made some great suggestions for what could be on the UnixOS/2 website. A lot of these topics had already been discussed on this list but either there was no final conclusion or nobody really remembers what was up. ;-) If it's unclear what the (not really existing) UnixOS/2 standard says about a specific topic, please ask here. Then we'll discuss that topic for the (hopefully) last time. > I think that it is not only useful to see for the folks contributing so > that they can see what is going on, but also from a psychological POV as > it is a bit easier to tell that things are indeed moving forward. You're absolutely right. It's sometimes demotivating to see how nothing seems to happen. Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:48:53 +1100 (EDT) From: "IanM" Subject: Ports Hi Jeff >Though on that note, I do think it would be interesting to have >something like "Ports" so that it can use UnixOS2 packages and doesn't >affect the core UnixOS2 project at all... it's just sort've an alternative. http://os2ports.com/ >But John is right in that the packages themselves need more attention at >the moment; "Ports" is just "user empowerment". Agreed. Cheers IanM http://www.os2site.com/ Once you pull the pin, mister handgrenade is no longer your friend... **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 01:39:21 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: FTP access, was Some news John Poltorak wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:31:41AM +1100, IanM wrote: > > Hi Adrian > > > > >Can I mirror the server? I have plenty of space & bandwith at > > >netlabs.org and I could easily mirror the whole structure if this is ok > > >for you > > > > I would wait until we give some more thought to the directory > > structure, though I cant hear any ideas coming back !! > > I would prefer a deeper directory structure, more in keeping with a > standard Linux distro. I don't actually see too much wrong with the one > used originally. We had a discussion about this some time ago. The final conclusion was that the directories which are supposed to have a lot of traffic should use a memorizable naming scheme (which is not the case for a1, a2, d3, p4). The source packges (all existing versions) go into .../source/packagename/ so that everybody can find the sources of foo 1.2.3 easily. The precompiled packages go into .../binary/packagename/ so that everybody can find any binary version of foo there. This includes normal distro packages as well as special fixes or urgent compilations of new releases of foo that are not ready for the distro but are urgently required by some other programs. Just a note: There was a tight opinion poll: One vote for the one level flat structure and one vote for a two level structure. ;-) Of course, then there is also the directory structure of the distro files themselves that hasn't been specified yet. For this we can use that a1, b2, t5 naming scheme because a) we need fixed directory and file names for the distro (i.e. grep has to be in unixos2-current/a1/grep.zip) so that we don't have to change links, download scripts and the installation script itself. b) the distro is either supposed to be downloaded by the users at once (e.g. to be burnt onto a CD) or c) access is supposed to happen by an html interface (download the latest stable grep -> link to .../unixos2-current/a1/grep.zip) However, creating a new distro is a long term task. As soon as we have a consistent set of packages we create a new "stable" distribution in .../unixos2-current/. New releases of single packages will be added to .../unixos2-beta/ first until we have another consistent set of packages. > What I would like to ensure is some sort of division between miscellaneous > ports, and those which should be regarded as 'official' UnixOS/2 packages. Packages that are not "official" UnixOS/2 but to some extent Unix-like might be placed into the same source/binary (may be source.misc/binary.misc) structure (but not placed into .../unixos2-current/, of course). Btw. we could use a different file name extension for UnixOS/2 packages (e.g. .ux2 or .pkg) so that the file is obviously not a simple .zip file but contains some installation info for a package installer (the file format would still be .zip). Then people could associate this extension with the UnixOS/2 package installer (and double click on it). Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 01:39:21 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: FTP access, was Some news John Poltorak wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:31:41AM +1100, IanM wrote: > > Hi Adrian > > > > >Can I mirror the server? I have plenty of space & bandwith at > > >netlabs.org and I could easily mirror the whole structure if this is ok > > >for you > > > > I would wait until we give some more thought to the directory > > structure, though I cant hear any ideas coming back !! > > I would prefer a deeper directory structure, more in keeping with a > standard Linux distro. I don't actually see too much wrong with the one > used originally. We had a discussion about this some time ago. The final conclusion was that the directories which are supposed to have a lot of traffic should use a memorizable naming scheme (which is not the case for a1, a2, d3, p4). The source packges (all existing versions) go into .../source/packagename/ so that everybody can find the sources of foo 1.2.3 easily. The precompiled packages go into .../binary/packagename/ so that everybody can find any binary version of foo there. This includes normal distro packages as well as special fixes or urgent compilations of new releases of foo that are not ready for the distro but are urgently required by some other programs. Just a note: There was a tight opinion poll: One vote for the one level flat structure and one vote for a two level structure. ;-) Of course, then there is also the directory structure of the distro files themselves that hasn't been specified yet. For this we can use that a1, b2, t5 naming scheme because a) we need fixed directory and file names for the distro (i.e. grep has to be in unixos2-current/a1/grep.zip) so that we don't have to change links, download scripts and the installation script itself. b) the distro is either supposed to be downloaded by the users at once (e.g. to be burnt onto a CD) or c) access is supposed to happen by an html interface (download the latest stable grep -> link to .../unixos2-current/a1/grep.zip) However, creating a new distro is a long term task. As soon as we have a consistent set of packages we create a new "stable" distribution in .../unixos2-current/. New releases of single packages will be added to .../unixos2-beta/ first until we have another consistent set of packages. > What I would like to ensure is some sort of division between miscellaneous > ports, and those which should be regarded as 'official' UnixOS/2 packages. Packages that are not "official" UnixOS/2 but to some extent Unix-like might be placed into the same source/binary (may be source.misc/binary.misc) structure (but not placed into .../unixos2-current/, of course). Btw. we could use a different file name extension for UnixOS/2 packages (e.g. .ux2 or .pkg) so that the file is obviously not a simple .zip file but contains some installation info for a package installer (the file format would still be .zip). Then people could associate this extension with the UnixOS/2 package installer (and double click on it). Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:49:32 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Another (similar?) build script system On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 04:21:38PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 03:46:16PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:54:37PM -0500, Vincent Marciante wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > http://www.lnx-bbc.org/garchitecture.html > > > > > > is used by > > > > > > http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/garnome/ > > > > > > I saw this while surfing and though that it > > > might interest John P. It seemed to me to > > > have a purpose similar to that of the UnixOS/2 > > > build scripts. Maybe some part of it could > > > be useful to UnixOS/2. > > > > I've had a quick look at this but don't really appreciate it's > > significance... AIUI most Unix programs can be built from source simply by > > running Configure and Make. I would like this to be the case for OS/2 > > eventually too, although some already can, given the correct build > > environment, so I don't think that assembling a collection of Makefiles, > > as seems to be the case with GAR, is an improvement on the GNU Build > > System which uses Autoconf and Automake. > > The whole point of the BSD ports is that customized makefiles are preferred to > configure scripts. I guess that means that someone has to create the Makefiles in the first place... Doubtless these makefiles would not work on OS/2 in which case we would need a volunteer to convert them for our use. Somehow, I don't see anyone wishing to take this task on... > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:49:32 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Another (similar?) build script system On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 04:21:38PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 03:46:16PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:54:37PM -0500, Vincent Marciante wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > http://www.lnx-bbc.org/garchitecture.html > > > > > > is used by > > > > > > http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/garnome/ > > > > > > I saw this while surfing and though that it > > > might interest John P. It seemed to me to > > > have a purpose similar to that of the UnixOS/2 > > > build scripts. Maybe some part of it could > > > be useful to UnixOS/2. > > > > I've had a quick look at this but don't really appreciate it's > > significance... AIUI most Unix programs can be built from source simply by > > running Configure and Make. I would like this to be the case for OS/2 > > eventually too, although some already can, given the correct build > > environment, so I don't think that assembling a collection of Makefiles, > > as seems to be the case with GAR, is an improvement on the GNU Build > > System which uses Autoconf and Automake. > > The whole point of the BSD ports is that customized makefiles are preferred to > configure scripts. I guess that means that someone has to create the Makefiles in the first place... Doubtless these makefiles would not work on OS/2 in which case we would need a volunteer to convert them for our use. Somehow, I don't see anyone wishing to take this task on... > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John