[M3devel] package groups question

[Olaf Wagner]

I meant getting the first instance of cm3 5.1 run on a certain platform.
And there was of course a first platform. We used the SRC compiler,
the cm3 4.1 from Critical Mass, and the PM3 compiler on different
platforms. Later we used cross-compilation almost exclusively.

I assume that cross-compilation support has improved dramatically
with all your changes.

Olaf

Quoting Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>:

>
> 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
>>



-- 
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