Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Kowis" <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO
  • Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 13:20:01 -0600 (CST)


--
One login to rule them all, one login to find them. One login to bring
them all, and in the web bind them.

<quote who="Andrew">
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
>> I talked to Unet few days ago and he will be busy with work and thesis
>> up to February or March apparently. Our Roadmap is to make a 1.0 release
>> on 2005-04-03. So, this will let only one month or two to gather the
>> work made by the Cauldron Team Members and produce a working ISO.
>
> Perhaps then, someone such as our project lead can step in a rectify this,
> or act at the temporary cauldron lead for now to guide the team.
>
> I also think that our 1.0 goal is not attainable given the state things
> are in now. Its not anyones fault really, I just think we miss-assessed
> how much work there was to be done and how quickly it could get done.
> There hasnt been much feedback from the iso team at either of the big
> meetings where the date was set, and then agreed to still be do-able,
> that date is basically when I thought we'd be done with sorcery features
> for 1.0.
>
>> (http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7911). And right now, we
>> have no beta testers.
>
> I subtly have been volunteering to be a tester, but I guess I'll say it
> formally now "I will help beta-test the isos". However I urge everyone
> reading this who has a second box, or hard drive, or even partition,
> to also participate in beta testing. The future of this distribution
> depends on your help...allow me to explain

I'll help beta test ISOs too. At least if installing them under VMWare is
acceptable.

>
> <soapbox>
> we cant have a good iso unless its well tested
> without a good iso users will get discouraged installing the system
> if users get discouraged installing it, they wont use it and they'll tell
> everyone else it sucks
> if we dont have any new users we wont have (many) new developers
> without new developers ... well you know the rest :)
>
> on the other hand..
> if everyone tests the iso we can have it be much higher quality
> with a good iso more users will install the system when we announce the
> isos
> with more users we increase our "evangelical network"
> which means some of them will convince their friends to install smgl
> without us having to advertise
> also, more users means more developers
> more developers means a better distribution
> </soapbox>
>
>>
>> Another point. Along all those discussions, we have changed from
>> building a working ISO used to install Source Mage to producing a nice
>> and portable script that will let anyone do its own ISO. This is not the
>> same goal even if the former requires the latter (or part of it).
>>
>
> I agree that they are not the same goal, but the alterior motive is
> that this would help the collaboration problem, its a forcing function. If
> your goal is just to make an iso, you'll never do it, theres no reason
> to. However if thats your main goal then you guys can arrive at a
> point where you can both make basically the same thing the same way
> on any machine (ie, your own and dkowis's server) then it'd be easier
> for you guys to work on things together. You'd have the same code-base,
> and you'd know that if you fixed something one place it'd probably show
> up at the other.

It's like having a build script for a compiled project. Albeit, sorcery
doesn't need something like this, because it's not compiled, the ISO
should have a defined process that puts it together. A good strategy to
find one, is to divide the ISO building process into as many small atomic
parts as possible, then order those parts by dependency and use a larger,
all encompassing script to glue them all together in the correct order. I
don't know much about make files but I think that would be a solution. I
think I've heard that the instructions to build an ISO were in two
different spots, because we have two different people working on it? If
I'm wrong then ignore me, because I'm pulling this outta my hed without
researching it first. But anyway, a defined process for creating the ISO
is, IMHO, a must to further development. Because then everyone's building
the same thing the same way. If pieces are added to one and not the other,
they can be easily added, or removed. Enough of my blithering...


Ranting and raving,
David





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page