[M3devel] package groups question

[Jay K]

What does it mean to boot the compiler?
 

I build the compiler from nothing but the compiler itself,
and config files, and C compiler and linker, cvs
to get all the source.
That's not nothing, but it about the smallest start you can have,
unless you rewrite the compiler in C, then you can start without
the Modula-3 compiler. But at certain points in time this
would not work, due to m3core and/or libm3 problems.
It does work today.
 

Is that booting?
 

In future I'd like to dynamically link cm3, so I'd start with
cm3, libm3.so, libm3core.so, etc. -- just cm3 and its "static dynamic"
dependencies. Many other systems do dynamically link to this extent
and we can to.
 
 
I'm not just being obnoxious.
Really, what does it mean?
 
 
Should we just ship std and that's it?
And even drop the name from it?
  cm3-PPC_LINUX-5.8.2.tar.gz ? 
 

(No need to say "POSIX", it is redundant).
Just one download per platform?
Not a big matrix of packages to test?
 

Or do we look too fat in that packaging? :)
 

Will too much stuff confuse users?
 

Or mitigate the bulk with a little documentation/tutorial?
 

Something like this:

There are many libraries and packages.
You do not need to worry about them.
Here is hello world for a command line program:
  ...
And for a gui program:
  ...
And a minimal sample interoperating with C:
   ...
And a minimal sample using Modula-3's RPC called "network objects":
   ...

CM3 4.1 had some like this that were nice, presumably we have them.

 - Jay




----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:20:48 -0400
> From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] package groups question
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:13:58AM -0400, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 04:05:46PM +0200, Olaf Wagner wrote:
>>> Quoting Tony Hosking :
>>>
>>>>I don't care if future versions are not compilable with old cm3. But,
>>>>vice versa, old versions should always be compilable with new cm3.
>>>>
>>>>My gut feelings run along the lines of what Randy has said. I do
>>>>think that the average user should accept std as the install, while
>>>>min is for power-users who know what they are doing. Does that jive
>>>>with other people's expectations?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I only now caught up with _some_ of the mails on the m3devel
>>> list. Too much traffic for me to digest.
>>>
>>> I gather there's been a long discussion that `min' is not really
>>> useful as it is not enough to build the system. When we started
>>> the cm3 5 business many years ago with lots of uncompilable sources
>>> from Farshad Nayeri, we invented the following sets of packages:
>>>
>>> all - obvious meaning. most packages did not compile at all.
>>> std - the set of packages shipped as compilable and usable with
>>> every new release
>>> core - a useful but small set of packages including everything to
>>> bootstrap the compiler
>>> boot - the minimal set to bootstrap the compiler
>>> min - the minimal set useful for anyone (not wanting to compiler cm3)
>>>
>>> As of today, std = all, and boot isn't used any more as far as a I see.
>>
>> Is that becaouse no one ever boots the compiler any more? Or because
>> there are better ways to do it?
>>
>> -- hendrik
>
> I guess I should mention that ebian is perfectly happy if one source
> parckage (possibly the entire working cm3 system) generates multiple
> binary packages.
>
> -- hendrik
>