Hi, On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 13:18:04 +0100, ncrfgs wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Please take the time to read it and ask, since the document is a really short summary only. Personally, I think that if we manage to follow this plan, 2005 will be a step forward for both CLC and CRUX. I hope you see it the same way!
- "Look into distributed revision control to enable non 686 architectures"
What do you mean with `distributed control version system'? Revision control systems which allow local replication of the repository. We've discussed those some time ago, typical examples are bitkeeper, svk, monotone, darcs, arch gnuarch/tla/arx.
- "accept non 686 subprojects if they are CRUX compatible"
Could you please define `CRUX compatible'? Share the philosophy and vision we have.
- "define index file for additional ISOs which can be used by the installer do provide an extended package..." ^
I'm not sure but maybe that is a typo. It is :-)
- Has been the `license' issue discussed further?
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/clc-devel/2004-September/000630.html We briefly talked about it, but didn't decide anything.
- What about the `nvhelper.sh file' issue we discussed some time ago? We didn't talk about this at CRUXCon.
- Is the `Depends on' tag the definitive solution to the dependencies issue? For the time being, yes. That said, there's probably going to be a change in the Pkgfile structure when "attributes" (see my other post regarding aliases) are introduced, but the format is yet to be decided. For the time being, the only tools supporting dependencies only understand the "Depends on" tag, so there's no good reason to change that now.
Will the `Depends on' tag still include `Nice to have' packages instead of only the real dependecies? They're all real dependencies WRT the footprint. That's a selection the package makes.
- Will the, let's say, new `entity' born from the fusion of CRUX and the CLC, share the "keep it simple" and "what can't be done in a simple and nice way shouldn't be done at all" philosophy some of us love so much? Yes
Aren't a lot of (or at least some of) the initiatives resulted from the Crux Con following a different philosophy? I don't think so. They're definitely extensions, but I think they live up to the goals of CRUX pretty well.
- Now that the CruxCON2004 is far away I'd like to ask you a question...
Wouldn't have been nice to invite CRUX PPC developers, too? Actually, giulivo has been invited but (I quote Per Liden) "only as a person, not as a developer".
Why? Well, according to your webpage, that's half of your team, right? So you might as "why didn't you invite me?", since that's really what it is.
We wanted to focus on those technical issues outlined in the agenda. In the past, there were some rather unfriendly discussions here between members from CLC and CRUX PPC (you and me included...), and it was not the intention to continue this nor to resolve our differences at this meeting. I also get the impression that all CRUX-IT projects are very independent, and you aren't afraid to adjust certain things your way (think: GNU/, ilenia, categories in cvsup, Evolution) and critizise our views (be it Per's or CLC's). At CLC, we have a different approach, since we tried to stay as close to Per's philosophy as possible, discuss changes with him and have as much integrated in CRUX mainline as possible (e.g. the 'ports' backend). In addition, we tried hard to maintain a positive climate in communication related to CRUX (also when it's PPC related, e.g. see the xemacs issue some time ago). In the lights of the above, the selection included those people we expected to create a productive team for CRUXCon, to come up with solutions in this very short initial meeting. If you decide to drop some of the independency and accept certain decisions you would take differently, I'm sure there's no problem to become a CRUX subproject. Independent of that, I'd assume that we can organize a meeting which is open to CRUX PPC and others to discuss integration issues between CRUX (the core project(s)) and others, but you have to understand that for CRUXCon 2004, the goals were completely different.
- In the end... Has it been the CruxCON2004 or the CLCCON2004? You can call it either way. I call it CRUXCon 2004.
Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net