Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:07:28 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 326 ************************************************** Tuesday 18 May 2004 Number 326 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... (was: Re: [Fwd: Dialog install]) : Michael Zolk 2 Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 3 UX2BS : T.Sikora" 4 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 5 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 6 Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... (was: Re: [Fwd: Dialog : John Poltorak 7 Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 9 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Adrian Gschwend" 1 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Adrian Gschwend" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:10:25 +0200 From: Michael Zolk Subject: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... (was: Re: [Fwd: Dialog install]) On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:59:56AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >I see UX2BS building the key components and routines we require. > UX2BS has to make concessions and allow us to use 'third party ports' > for the sake of cohesion and maintaining a full distribution. After the > basic install and mechanisims are in place completeing the build > environment and making it reproducable with UX2 is probably the > priority. We don't have to be current(port wise)only key components like > zlib, etc., if it builds and works use it for now. That should be the > last step when it's completed. > > > Phew! I guess it's time for everyone else's take on this. OK, here's my take on this: First, let me say that I haven't followed the progress of UX2BS closely enough to know all its details or the exact differences between your and John's version. However, I really like John's approach where he tries to build everything from the "upstream" sources and to clearly distinguish between this upstream sources and the patches and build scripts needed for UX2BS. Thus we have a nice infrastructure in place to build stuff and to maintain the future distribution which will hopefully save a lot of work in the long run. Therefore I'd prefer UX2BS as a sort of "starting point" for the UnixOS2 distribution. A rough roadmap could look like this: * "freeze" UX2BS, i.e. do not add anything new to it, no new apps in build.table, just concentrate on the apps that are currently in UX2BS. This way, there will be only a small number of packages in the distribution, maybe even some important tools might be missing. However as a first step while we still have to figure out how to do things it will probably be much easier to concentrate on only a few packages. * test this frozen UX2BS and fix bugs. Issues to look out for are - do all apps work correctly with the same set of DLLs - handling of line ends: CRLF vs LF - hardcoded paths - a lot more which I'm too lazy to think of right now * start packaging the apps built with UX2BS for the UnixOS2 distribution. Of course it would be easier if there were a tool to automagically create these packages, but even if there isn't we should go on with this. These packages then need more testing. * sometime during this whole process the installer(s) should be finished. * When everything seems to be reasonably stable, release UnixOS/2 1.0. * Celebrate. Michael -- Stimmt, MS-Benutzer zu verhohnepiepeln ist eigentlich so unwaidmaennisch wie tote Schafe zu treten. Trotzdem sehr angenehm wollig-warm im Tritt. ---Andreas Kabel, de.admin.net-abuse.misc _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:40:52 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Michael Zolk wrote: > On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:59:56AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>>I see UX2BS building the key components and routines we require. > > >>UX2BS has to make concessions and allow us to use 'third party ports' >>for the sake of cohesion and maintaining a full distribution. After the >>basic install and mechanisims are in place completeing the build >>environment and making it reproducable with UX2 is probably the >>priority. We don't have to be current(port wise)only key components like >>zlib, etc., if it builds and works use it for now. That should be the >>last step when it's completed. >> >> >>Phew! I guess it's time for everyone else's take on this. > > > OK, here's my take on this: > > First, let me say that I haven't followed the progress of UX2BS closely > enough to know all its details or the exact differences between your and > John's version. > > However, I really like John's approach where he tries to build everything > from the "upstream" sources and to clearly distinguish between this upstream > sources and the patches and build scripts needed for UX2BS. Thus we have a This is the 'ports tree' in UX2 ala FreeBSD. > nice infrastructure in place to build stuff and to maintain the future > distribution which will hopefully save a lot of work in the long run. > > Therefore I'd prefer UX2BS as a sort of "starting point" for the UnixOS2 > distribution. A rough roadmap could look like this: > > * "freeze" UX2BS, i.e. do not add anything new to it, no new apps in > build.table, just concentrate on the apps that are currently in UX2BS. > This way, there will be only a small number of packages in the > distribution, maybe even some important tools might be missing. However as > a first step while we still have to figure out how to do things it will > probably be much easier to concentrate on only a few packages. > > * test this frozen UX2BS and fix bugs. Issues to look out for are > - do all apps work correctly with the same set of DLLs > - handling of line ends: CRLF vs LF > - hardcoded paths > - a lot more which I'm too lazy to think of right now > > * start packaging the apps built with UX2BS for the UnixOS2 distribution. Of > course it would be easier if there were a tool to automagically create > these packages, but even if there isn't we should go on with this. These > packages then need more testing. > > * sometime during this whole process the installer(s) should be finished. Exactly but take a less-stringent attitude towards all packages being built by UX2BS and *allow* 3rd party ports till they can be ported and released to UX2 for inclusuion. The big complaint from many users or potential users is when will this thing ever be released. I totally understand this thefore UX2BS *should* be the 'core developers' component of the distribution. The UX2 component concentrates on the install, packaging, and 'completeness' of the distribution. > > * When everything seems to be reasonably stable, release UnixOS/2 1.0. That may take a long, long time if history is any indication. We never go beyong a few ports. We need UX2 to nudge UX2BS along. Kind of like 'come on guys we need 'sh' ported soon or this thing is totally useless. Way too much time is being wasted on pretty much 'nonsense' or just way off the beaten path. It would be a start anyways. We change it as we progress. I would say start it at v 0.1 and kick it up a notch or a few for each port or tree (ex; a1) completed that's all UX2BS an 'ports tree' buildable. > > * Celebrate. I hate to be negative but as the way things stand now I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime. An example autoconf 2.1.3 works pretty well across the board. The newer versions have yet to work well. We spent 8 months at this then moved on. That's were we make concessions. Eventually these should all be maintained by a port maintainer for each in the 'ports tree' except for the core components which are UX2BS devised. > > Michael -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:52:14 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: UX2BS The current core system should be zipped for the distribution and perl, etc and all the stuff that builds packaged. The scripts to call these builds are all part of /ports tree. The user gets his choice to install the package or go to /ports and run 'build port'. However some packages have to be a *madatory* install so it will in fact build these. This is the 'bare minumum' of what John spoke of so much. The other side of the coin. THe 3rd party apps for completeness are the packages needed to be build by UX2BS. As they are they are packaged and replaced. Probably the single most important piece right now is 'makepkg'. With that we are well on our way to finishing this. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:17:07 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > Michael Zolk wrote: > >> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:59:56AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >> >>>> I see UX2BS building the key components and routines we require. >> >> >> >>> UX2BS has to make concessions and allow us to use 'third party ports' >>> for the sake of cohesion and maintaining a full distribution. After >>> the basic install and mechanisims are in place completeing the build >>> environment and making it reproducable with UX2 is probably the >>> priority. We don't have to be current(port wise)only key components >>> like zlib, etc., if it builds and works use it for now. That should >>> be the last step when it's completed. >>> >>> >>> Phew! I guess it's time for everyone else's take on this. >> >> >> >> OK, here's my take on this: >> >> First, let me say that I haven't followed the progress of UX2BS closely >> enough to know all its details or the exact differences between your and >> John's version. Well I guess mine never was the UX2BS, It was/is the UX2 Distribution completed. Sort of a sneak preview when completed. The 'make build' and scripts component was/ and is the 'ports tree' just like in FreeBSD. At some point it *had* to be incorporated into UX2. The other part the bootstrap is essentially a tool for UX2BS developers to get all this stuff painlessly to work on. Since it worked I converted it to use as an install method for UX2. A few of the guys will start work on a dialog based install for cdrom/ftp installs shortly. Nothing is basically different between the two *except* for the missing ports to make it complete. As it stands now it builds pretty much anything you can throw at it with some tweaking. We really need to streamline the core components or minumum build to match each other and make zipfiles for them for UX2. I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:57 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> Michael Zolk wrote: >> >>> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:59:56AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> I see UX2BS building the key components and routines we require. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> UX2BS has to make concessions and allow us to use 'third party >>>> ports' for the sake of cohesion and maintaining a full distribution. >>>> After the basic install and mechanisims are in place completeing the >>>> build environment and making it reproducable with UX2 is probably >>>> the priority. We don't have to be current(port wise)only key >>>> components like zlib, etc., if it builds and works use it for now. >>>> That should be the last step when it's completed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Phew! I guess it's time for everyone else's take on this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> OK, here's my take on this: >>> >>> First, let me say that I haven't followed the progress of UX2BS closely >>> enough to know all its details or the exact differences between your and >>> John's version. > > > Well I guess mine never was the UX2BS, It was/is the UX2 Distribution > completed. Sort of a sneak preview when completed. The 'make build' and > scripts component was/ and is the 'ports tree' just like in FreeBSD. At > some point it *had* to be incorporated into UX2. The other part the > bootstrap is essentially a tool for UX2BS developers to get all this > stuff painlessly to work on. Since it worked I converted it to use as an > install method for UX2. A few of the guys will start work on a dialog > based install for cdrom/ftp installs shortly. Nothing is basically > different between the two *except* for the missing ports to make it > complete. As it stands now it builds pretty much anything you can throw > at it with some tweaking. We really need to streamline the core > components or minumum build to match each other and make zipfiles for > them for UX2. I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. > We really need 2 camps. One doing the UX2BS where all this neat stuff is being developed and the UX2 camp where the distribution is maintained and built. I would think John would be the overseer and liason between the 2 camps and makes all the final decisions on what should be moved over or used in UX2. Or appoint a few officers or core team if you will. A democratic system will not work here. Someone has to make the decisions or nothing will get done like what was happening. That works in the lists but final decisions on whats used *has* to be dictated. I'm sure we all want this thing to get out of the garage! -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:56:20 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... (was: Re: [Fwd: Dialog On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:10:25PM +0200, Michael Zolk wrote: > OK, here's my take on this: > > First, let me say that I haven't followed the progress of UX2BS closely > enough to know all its details or the exact differences between your and > John's version. The main difference is Ted wants to provide a plug 'n play UnixOS/2 using UX2BS as a basis for that and bundling in everything which is currently missing using existing ports. I would also like to see something along those lines, but would prefer to see everything built from scratch using a small toolset. Unfortunately this will take a long time and in the meantime we could provide a pretty featureful UnixOS/2 environment now using Ted's approach which would allow users to get accustomed to using this environment and making the most of it. > However, I really like John's approach where he tries to build everything > from the "upstream" sources and to clearly distinguish between this upstream > sources and the patches and build scripts needed for UX2BS. Thus we have a > nice infrastructure in place to build stuff and to maintain the future > distribution which will hopefully save a lot of work in the long run. Yes, in the long run it will save a lot of work because the idea behind UX2BS is to be able to rebuild any app in a fully automated fashion. In fact it should be possible in theory to rebuild a whole UnixOS/2 distro using a single command. But all this takes time and in the meantime the remaining OS/2 users are dropping out of the OS/2 community principally because of lack of apps, inspite of the there being a huge pool of open source software which should build on OS/2, but currently can't because we don't have a standard infrastructure in place. > Therefore I'd prefer UX2BS as a sort of "starting point" for the UnixOS2 > distribution. A rough roadmap could look like this: > > * "freeze" UX2BS, i.e. do not add anything new to it, no new apps in > build.table, just concentrate on the apps that are currently in UX2BS. > This way, there will be only a small number of packages in the > distribution, maybe even some important tools might be missing. However as > a first step while we still have to figure out how to do things it will > probably be much easier to concentrate on only a few packages. The problem here is that UX2BS does not work properly with some apps. There are too many bits missing. Whist the general framework has hardly changed for 18 months a number of what I would call 'core apps' won't build yet. Before UX2BS can be 'frozen' I would suggest it should be capable of at least rebuilding the 'baseline' toolset from which it starts along with a few other apps. In addition I would also like it to incorporate a number of basic 'building blocks' such as zlib, jpeg, tiff, readline, groff, man, libtool, iconv among one or two others. > * test this frozen UX2BS and fix bugs. Issues to look out for are > - do all apps work correctly with the same set of DLLs > - handling of line ends: CRLF vs LF > - hardcoded paths > - a lot more which I'm too lazy to think of right now > > * start packaging the apps built with UX2BS for the UnixOS2 distribution. Of > course it would be easier if there were a tool to automagically create > these packages, but even if there isn't we should go on with this. These > packages then need more testing. > > * sometime during this whole process the installer(s) should be finished. > > * When everything seems to be reasonably stable, release UnixOS/2 1.0. I think Ted should go ahead and put together UnixOS/2 0.1 now and work out how we manage to keep incorporating updates in UX2BS into it. Hopefully once we have a frozen and fully tested UX2BS we can synchronise this with UnixOS/2 in time for v1.0. > * Celebrate. I'm certainly looking forward to that! > Michael > -- > Stimmt, MS-Benutzer zu verhohnepiepeln ist eigentlich so > unwaidmaennisch wie tote Schafe zu treten. Trotzdem sehr > angenehm wollig-warm im Tritt. > ---Andreas Kabel, de.admin.net-abuse.misc -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:09:38 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:10:25PM +0200, Michael Zolk wrote: > > >>OK, here's my take on this: >> >>First, let me say that I haven't followed the progress of UX2BS closely >>enough to know all its details or the exact differences between your and >>John's version. > > > The main difference is Ted wants to provide a plug 'n play UnixOS/2 using > UX2BS as a basis for that and bundling in everything which is > currently missing using existing ports. I would also like to see something > along those lines, but would prefer to see everything built from scratch > using a small toolset. Unfortunately this will take a long time and in the > meantime we could provide a pretty featureful UnixOS/2 environment now > using Ted's approach which would allow users to get accustomed to using > this environment and making the most of it. This would help greatly. We could see what's working, what's not, problem areas, etc. > > >>However, I really like John's approach where he tries to build everything >>from the "upstream" sources and to clearly distinguish between this upstream >>sources and the patches and build scripts needed for UX2BS. Thus we have a >>nice infrastructure in place to build stuff and to maintain the future >>distribution which will hopefully save a lot of work in the long run. > > > Yes, in the long run it will save a lot of work because the idea behind > UX2BS is to be able to rebuild any app in a fully automated fashion. In > fact it should be possible in theory to rebuild a whole UnixOS/2 distro > using a single command. I'm for that! The 'make buildworld'/'make installworld' from FreeBSD. Now that is cool! But the basic system still has to be installed. But all this takes time and in the meantime the > remaining OS/2 users are dropping out of the OS/2 community principally > because of lack of apps, That's it exactly. Many have put their hopes in UX2 and it just has not materialized yet. inspite of the there being a huge pool of open > source software which should build on OS/2, but currently can't because we > don't have a standard infrastructure in place. > > > >>Therefore I'd prefer UX2BS as a sort of "starting point" for the UnixOS2 >>distribution. A rough roadmap could look like this: >> >>* "freeze" UX2BS, i.e. do not add anything new to it, no new apps in >> build.table, just concentrate on the apps that are currently in UX2BS. >> This way, there will be only a small number of packages in the >> distribution, maybe even some important tools might be missing. However as >> a first step while we still have to figure out how to do things it will >> probably be much easier to concentrate on only a few packages. > > > The problem here is that UX2BS does not work properly with some apps. > There are too many bits missing. Whist the general framework has hardly > changed for 18 months a number of what I would call 'core apps' won't > build yet. I see UX2BS as the development area for the distribution. The FreeBSD-like 'ports tree' came from their and it works pretty flawlessly. Same with the package tools. I see it as the 'custom shop' where the mechanisms, build environment, and *mandatory* ports are created and packaged. It's not the distribution and never was meant to be. Same with the bootstrap, a developers tool for their use. > > Before UX2BS can be 'frozen' I would suggest it should be capable of at > least rebuilding the 'baseline' toolset from which it starts along with a > few other apps. In addition I would also like it to incorporate a number > of basic 'building blocks' such as zlib, jpeg, tiff, readline, groff, man, > libtool, iconv among one or two others. > > > >>* test this frozen UX2BS and fix bugs. Issues to look out for are >> - do all apps work correctly with the same set of DLLs >> - handling of line ends: CRLF vs LF >> - hardcoded paths >> - a lot more which I'm too lazy to think of right now >> >>* start packaging the apps built with UX2BS for the UnixOS2 distribution. Of >> course it would be easier if there were a tool to automagically create >> these packages, but even if there isn't we should go on with this. These >> packages then need more testing. >> >>* sometime during this whole process the installer(s) should be finished. >> >>* When everything seems to be reasonably stable, release UnixOS/2 1.0. > > > I think Ted should go ahead and put together UnixOS/2 0.1 now and work out > how we manage to keep incorporating updates in UX2BS into it. Hopefully > once we have a frozen and fully tested UX2BS we can synchronise this with > UnixOS/2 in time for v1.0. > Jeff and me were hoping to kick the dust off it and go through it possibly this weekend. I really think we should download the UX2BS first, check it out thouroughly, move it somewhere then run the UX2 script. IT's works now and still works I believe. I need to go through it and replace all the UX2BS references to just UX2. I suggest we just use that modified bootstrap for the install till we make a dialog based one. > > >>* Celebrate. > > > I'm certainly looking forward to that! > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:33:59 +0200 (CEST) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:57 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >We really need 2 camps. One doing the UX2BS where all this neat stuff is >being developed and the UX2 camp where the distribution is maintained >and built. I would think John would be the overseer and liason between so basical ux2bs would be the "unstable" branch and ux2 the stable, binary only branch? I would support that idea. Like this die-hard developers can use ux2bs and the normal user will take the tested binary releases. >the 2 camps and makes all the final decisions on what should be moved >over or used in UX2. Or appoint a few officers or core team if you will. >A democratic system will not work here. Someone has to make the >decisions or nothing will get done like what was happening. That works >in the lists but final decisions on whats used *has* to be dictated. I'm >sure we all want this thing to get out of the garage! ACK. But that needs to be organized. I also agree about packet-maintainers. cu Adrian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:33:59 +0200 (CEST) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:57 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >We really need 2 camps. One doing the UX2BS where all this neat stuff is >being developed and the UX2 camp where the distribution is maintained >and built. I would think John would be the overseer and liason between so basical ux2bs would be the "unstable" branch and ux2 the stable, binary only branch? I would support that idea. Like this die-hard developers can use ux2bs and the normal user will take the tested binary releases. >the 2 camps and makes all the final decisions on what should be moved >over or used in UX2. Or appoint a few officers or core team if you will. >A democratic system will not work here. Someone has to make the >decisions or nothing will get done like what was happening. That works >in the lists but final decisions on whats used *has* to be dictated. I'm >sure we all want this thing to get out of the garage! ACK. But that needs to be organized. I also agree about packet-maintainers. cu Adrian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs