[M3devel] Rants about an improbable release

[Rodney M. Bates]

On 10/29/2016 08:34 PM, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. wrote:
> Hello all:
> contrary to most of you think; I still see cvsup update efficiency by file and compiler recompile only updated sources method as the most advanced build/update system of what I have seen in this world. Please keep it that way
>

But this does not address what we need for a release.  A release needs to provide a way
for somebody who has no Modula3 compiler at all to download and install already-compiled
binaries, not only for the compiler itself, but probably much of the other stuff as
well, though not all in a single package.

> Thanks in advance
>
>
> El Sábado 29 de octubre de 2016 15:42, Rodney M. Bates <rodney_bates at lcwb.coop> escribió:
>
>
>
>
> On 10/28/2016 10:44 AM, Olaf Wagner wrote:
>  > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:42:38 -0500
>  > "Rodney M. Bates" <rodney_bates at lcwb.coop <mailto:rodney_bates at lcwb.coop>> wrote:
>  >
>  >> I agree, we very much need to make a new release.  There has been a lot
>  >> of development since the last one, especially for having a small developer
>  >> community.
>  >>
>  >> I have often thought I would be willing to do the work to do it, but every
>  >> time, I get stuck not having any idea what needs to be done.  For one
>  >> thing, I presume it entails verifying that things build and work on all
>  >> the various targets, which would further entail having access to one
>  >> of each of them.
>  >>
>  >> Are such machines available?  Any advice on how to proceed?
>  >
>  > I think the most important thing would be to have an agreement on
>  > - which platforms will be part of the release
>  > - how the release will be packaged and deployed.
>  >
>  > I'd advise to concentrate on a small number of important platforms,
>
> OK, let's hear some nominations for important platforms.
>
> I need AMD64_LINUX and LINUXLIBC6.  For the future, I would probably want
> a Windows version, and there are some others using Windows regularly, I think.
>
> Jay, where can we look for the latest more-aptly-renamed platform names?
>
> or
>  > to have a simple standard procedure for all platforms (for example
>  > cross-compiled bootstrap archives)
>
> Are these just tar files of /usr/local/cm3?  Do we want to keep using
> cminstall?
>
> We are still requiring several static libraries (that are not part of CM3).
> These present installation problems, as most distros now do not include them
> by default, and, worse, it is quite a detective job to track from a name
> like "libmumble.a not found" to what package needs to be installed.  We
> probably want to configure to use mostly dynamic libraries.  Or maybe
> be able to use either?
>
> and more convenient support for some
>  > of them (for example Debian packages).
>  >
>
> Yes, this would be very good.  Then they could go in package archives, and
> installation would be much easier.  But we would also need to decide how
> to break things up into packages.  E.g., would the stuff in groups like
> do-cm3-comm and do-cm3-ui be separate?  Just matching what is in the various
> do-cm3-* scripts or the named groups in pkginfo.txt won't work, because they
> are highly non-disjoint.  We need a partition.
>
> Also, my understanding about packages is that, while putting together a
> package that will work is not too difficult, some Linux distros have
> stringent requirements about package contents that are a lot more work
> to create.
>
>
>  > Olaf
>  >
>
> --
> Rodney Bates
> rodney.m.bates at acm.org <mailto:rodney.m.bates at acm.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> M3devel mailing list
> M3devel at elegosoft.com <mailto:M3devel at elegosoft.com>
> https://m3lists.elegosoft.com/mailman/listinfo/m3devel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> M3devel mailing list
> M3devel at elegosoft.com
> https://m3lists.elegosoft.com/mailman/listinfo/m3devel
>

-- 
Rodney Bates
rodney.m.bates at acm.org