[clc-devel] CRUXCon 2004 results

Johannes Winkelmann jw at tks6.net
Wed Dec 22 13:34:22 UTC 2004


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?
>   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

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.

Johannes Winkelmann              mailto:jw at tks6.net
Bern, Switzerland                http://jw.tks6.net

More information about the crux-devel mailing list