[M3devel] stepping on your toes

[hendrik at topoi.pooq.com]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:35:33PM +0200, Olaf Wagner wrote:
> Quoting Jay <jay.krell at cornell.edu>:
> 
> >Olaf, the ws packages contain source and unshipped outputs, right?   
> >What do you think is the point of these archives vs. binary-only and  
> > source-only archives? I have ideas but I don't want to lead you.
> 
> The idea was to reduce the number of packages, as M3 does not
> really support the separation of source and derived files for binary
> packages. So why not just enrich the source with just the products
> needed for shipping? This is sort of the smallest supported _M3_-binary
> package.
> 
> Both system-dependent source and binary packages can be based on the
> same collection of ws packages.
> 
> Traditionally CM3 offered only sources packages except for the minimal
> installation archive. There were lots of problems with
> 
>  o people understanding how to compile the source and
>  o actual compilation errors due to miscellaneous causes
> 
> People wanted something that is easy to install (without using lots
> of complex scripts). So I extended the standard cm3 builder so it can
> be used for such an installation.

Just a point of interest.  Debian has a number of apparently proprietary 
packages -- such as the one for nvidia drivers.  What they do is, during 
installation, connect to the nvidia web site to download the driver, 
then install the result of downloading.

So a significane amount of very package-dependent work can be done 
during installation -- such as compiling.  It may not be in the spirit 
of binary packages, but can be made to work automatically.

What this doesn't do is enable multiple binary packages to be built from 
a single source -- which Debian also does frmo time to time, but at 
headquarters, not in apt or aptitude.

> 
> These are exactly the ws archives. M3 source and derived files which
> are needed for shipping an M3 package, but not more. I found that
> rather nice.
> 
> 
> >>core vs. min vs. boot
> >
> >Yeah I was equating min with boot.
> >Still, as to what is "minimal" vs. "useful", not clear. For example,  
> > "minimal" can be reduced by not allowing for static linking. The  
> >.sa  files add a lot of size. But that is slightly less useful, so   
> >someone who wants to make standalone programs.
> >And min still varies in definition depending on one's prediction of   
> >the future.
> >
> >Even then there are multiple definitions here:
> > boot for the current matching release
> > or boot for the next release?
> >
> >If it is for the matching release, no problem predicting the future,  
> > it is just the assembly code for cm3, and no provision for creating  
> > a package store with any contents, until user also gets source and   
> >builds it. I have in mind the old 3.6 release form, though we can't   
> >quite emulate it, now that the builder is in M3 and not C.
> >
> >I'd like to look into this cross building of boot/assembly releases,  
> > though first some other things..
> 
> The whole cross-compilation topic is not really relevant for a
> release IMO. There are very few people who actually want to do
> such things ;-)
> 
> Olaf
> -- 
> Olaf Wagner -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
>                Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
> phone: +49 30 23 45 86 96  mobile: +49 177 2345 869  fax: +49 30 23 45 86 95
>    http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
> Handelregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194
>