[clc-devel] CRUXCon 2004 results
Hi there, It's been a while since CRUXCon 2004, and most of us have been busier than expected. Therefore, the summary is only now announced here. We've prepared a Wiki page (some time ago actually, you might have read it already) with the most important ideas and goals: http://clc.morpheus.net:6999/clc/wiki?p=CruxConResults It contains some pretty exciting things, such as merging CVS and Webpage of CRUX and CLC, (finally) dropping unmaintained and a master plan for improving the overall situation with httpup reposities. Another point worth mentioning (IMHO) is the "Define subprojects" thing: we'd like to have subprojects for things like 'ports', 'doc', 'webpage' or 'installer', where interested contributors can take part without being engaged in any other subproject. So having a developers or contributors who don't maintain ports would then be possible. 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! Finally - if you haven't seen them yet - have a look at the pictures from CRUXCon 2004: http://jaeger.morpheus.net/images/travel/stockholm/ http://www.varlock.com/blosxom.cgi/galleries/cruxcon/ Kind regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
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'? - "accept non 686 subprojects if they are CRUX compatible" Could you please define `CRUX compatible'? - "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. - Has been the `license' issue discussed further? https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/clc-devel/2004-September/000630.html - What about the `nvhelper.sh file' issue we discussed some time ago? Since this file does contain code that it is somehow executed, shouldn't it be include in the Pkgfile source array and be given an md5sum? file:///usr/ports/contrib/nvidia/nvhelper.sh - Is the `Depends on' tag the definitive solution to the dependencies issue? Will the `Depends on' tag still include `Nice to have' packages instead of only the real dependecies? - 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? Aren't a lot of (or at least some of) the initiatives resulted from the Crux Con following a different philosophy? - 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? - In the end... Has it been the CruxCON2004 or the CLCCON2004? Thanks in advance. Best regards. -- Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. ``Don't bother us with politics,'' respond those who don't want to learn. -- Richard M. Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html
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
Corrections: On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 14:34:22 +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi,
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
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 13:18:04 +0100, ncrfgs wrote: [...] package makes. ...the packager makes.
- 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. So you might as well ask "why ..."
Hope it's better now, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 02:34:22PM +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
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.
svk?
- What about the `nvhelper.sh file' issue we discussed some time ago?
We didn't talk about this at CRUXCon.
BTW, what do you think about it after some time?
- 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.
WRT?
- 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
I hope so and I hope that Per will be able to keep the control over the way things are done in CRUX.
- 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 ask "why didn't you invite me?", since that's really what it is.
No. My question was clear, I thought. Actually, giulivo has been invited but (I quote Per Liden) "only as a person, not as a developer". Why? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
We aren't afraid of adjust things? And what about you? What about prt-get, what about Depends on, what about README and pre-install and post-install scripts?
and critizise our views (be it Per's or CLC's).
What's bad in critizising? BTW, the crux-it one is another issue. We were talking about CRUX PPC, weren't we? And, personally speaking, even if it may looks like the contrary am I big Per's "way" fan.
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).
I don't think you've ever used CRUX PPC. If you did, you would know it is made just with this spirit. And this doesn't depend on whether you call it GNU/linux (as it should be called) or just linux. Oh, and since we are talking about phylosophy...
- "accept non 686 subprojects if they are CRUX compatible"
Could you please define `CRUX compatible'?
Share the philosophy and vision we have.
Funny. I would have expected a less "philosophycal" answer from one who doesn't care a lot about "phylosophy". =) What about the technical requirements to be defined CRUX compatible?
and have [them?] as much integrated in CRUX mainline as possible (e.g. the 'ports' backend).
We asked him, too if was it possible to integrate somehow the two CVS repos, but we were answered that, because of logistic problems, it wasn't possible to. Since you are going to merge, it looks like, just for you, these "problems" have been "solved".
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.
What were we expected to create instead? We would have loved to discuss about those topic. But maybe narrowmindness prevent somebody from viewing it.
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.
Some of the independency? What do you mean? In which way is the CRUX PPC independent from CRUX (the examples you provided were about crux-it)?
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.
They could seem the same but I think there is a wide difference. Thank in advance. Best regards. -- Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. ``Don't bother us with politics,'' respond those who don't want to learn. -- Richard M. Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html
ncrfgs, Why don't you just admit that you personally dislike and do not trust the CLC? You're not being very subtle at tip-toeing around it. It's okay - it's not like anyone hasn't figured it out yet. Just say "I don't like CLC. I think I should have been invited to CruxCon to make sure my agendas were met. Etc etc.." To which the CLC might reply, "That's fine if you do not like the CLC. We make no effort to influence or meddle with your project. Please do the same for us," and "You were not invited because you are not on the CLC." It's fairly simple. If you'd like to attend, submit an application for CLC maintainership. If you're accepted, and do your part for the project, you will of course be welcome to attend the next meeting. The bottom line is that the CLC project is naturally more closely tied to CRUX than PPC/IT because 1) it is for the same architecture and 2) it is documented and converses in the same language (English). I can understand that those points may frustrate you some, but that's the reality of the situation. Aside from that, you've been somewhat antagonistic in the past (and present). What cptn was trying to politely imply before is that we didn't want any bitching and moaning at the very first meeting. We had precious little time, and we wanted to use it efficiently. Personally, I didn't fly 9 hours each way to hear someone cry about "GNU/Linux." Ya feelin' me? ===== Jay Dolan Software Engineer, Systems Analyst Windmill Cycles, Inc. 508.999.4000 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Hi, On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 20:40:46 +0100, ncrfgs wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 02:34:22PM +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote: [...]
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.
What were we expected to create instead? We would have loved to discuss about those topic. But maybe narrowmindness prevent somebody from viewing it. Maybe. Maybe name-calling will make us friends. Maybe not. We'll see I guess.
Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
participants (3)
-
Jay Dolan -
Johannes Winkelmann -
ncrfgs