[M3devel] helo everyone - videotutorials for modula3

Thu Jun 16 01:10:18 CEST 2011

Hi all:
yes, it seems reasonable, but in cross-development environment, the options are too many, what is the situation respect of that,  I mean to compile for "optional" Scale-C from M3CG and to m3cc in Gcc and friends (PathScale, etc) either M3CG or so it would be wonderful to directly compile and link with just additional C compiler-linker if so or if so C-- assembler.
Thanks in advance

--- El mié, 15/6/11, Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: RE: [M3devel] helo everyone - videotutorials for modula3
Para: dabenavidesd at yahoo.es, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com, "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
Fecha: miércoles, 15 de junio, 2011 17:51

Still -- I want one "Modula-3" .deb per target.
More than that is more for some of us to learn to create, more for some of us to learn to use, and more for our potential users to be confused by.
Sure, our picky/advanced users will complain that our packaging is too monolithic.
I guess, really, a real concern, is if we want to get packages/ports accepted and maintained and regularly rebuilt by distribution maintainers, for that we might need multiple packages.
As well, you break things up when they become "too large". Is cm3?
Anyway..none of this is a big deal imho.
As long as the .deb works w/o postgres installed.

 - Jay

Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:47:44 +0100
From: dabenavidesd at yahoo.es
Subject: Re: [M3devel] helo everyone - videotutorials for modula3
To: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com; m3devel at elegosoft.com; jay.krell at cornell.edu

Hi all:
I think there is actually the deb virtual package, it can have it's own dependences, and it doesn't need other actual files, if the package is available (whether by dpkg- or package system query else user supplied then it goes else it doesn't install it).
Thanks in advance

--- El mié, 15/6/11, Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: Re: [M3devel] helo everyone - videotutorials for modula3
Para: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com, "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
Fecha: miércoles, 15 de junio, 2011 16:59

#yiv1264870707 .yiv1264870707ExternalClass #yiv1264870707ecxyiv303785295 .yiv1264870707ecxyiv303785295hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1264870707 .yiv1264870707ExternalClass #yiv1264870707ecxyiv303785295 .yiv1264870707ecxyiv303785295hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}

I don't like the idea of having multiple packages.
   And I don't see that it helps -- I don't know why installing the current .deb files doesn't work, fairly independent of what is installed (assuming there is at least gcc/ld/libc).

I want there to be close to one download per-target, and I want the web pages to sniff from the agent string which download to steer the user to, like the Firefox download pages do, with a link to a list of everything so user can chose, e.g. if they are downloading to run on other than the current system.
(one .deb or .msi or .dmg, etc., one .tar.gz/bz2/xz/lzma)

I find the current proliferation of packages, that we already have, confusing.
I'm ok with their being a separate set for "minimal to bootstrap from source".

I understand that things are in fact modular. That there is in fact a dependency tree. And it isn't very complicated. The system isn't monolithic.
But I
 don't think presenting users with many choices is friendly.

I understand that the world -- really, the larger world, beyond computers -- is modular. As is the computer world.
Parts come and go (people, buildings, roads, cars, etc.).
But considering things as being composed of too many too small pieces (atoms, molecules) gets confusing.

Maybe my tendency is toward too few too large pieces.

 - Jay

> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:39:33 -0400
> From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] helo everyone - videotutorials for modula3
> 
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:49:26PM -0500, felipe valdez wrote:
> > hello everyone.
> > 
> > this is me just nagging, and complaining, but not actually doing any useful
> > work,
> >  but, I guess a logic along the lines of:
> > 
> > do you want
 postgress integration (optional)?
> > >no
> > if( YES )
> >       please provide the path
> > else
> >       you have chosen not to integrate at this point.
> >       if you ever need to in the future, follow these instructions,
> > http://example.com/instructions
> > end if
> > 
> > instead of:
> > 
> > do you have the exact path of the non-optional-but-required component?
> > >nope
> > ok, then, I'll stop working, until you install the non-required dependency.
> 
> The usual way this stuff is done in Debian is to have the connection 
> with postgress be a separate packate, called something like 
> modula3-postgress. and whose description would say "postress binding for 
> modula3.
> 
> The postinstall scripts for modula3 and mosula3-postgress would 
> each check for the
 other package and make the necessary adjustments.
> 
> modula3-postgress would depend both on modula3 and on postgress.
> 
> There are probably a few library bindings for which this treatment would 
> be appropriate.
> 
> -- hendrik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20110616/a253de78/attachment-0002.html>