Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] OFF-TOPIC bi-arch request WAS: ISO generation

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Laurent Wandrebeck <low AT low.ath.cx>
  • To: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] OFF-TOPIC bi-arch request WAS: ISO generation
  • Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:56:10 +0100

> Just curious why do you keep bringing up bi-arch support at the drop of
> a hat? I didnt even mention sorcery in that email...Its like everything
> is seen with this lens that distorts whatever is being discussed to a
> bi-arch discussion.
Stop it right now. You seem to forget that sorcery is necessary to install
a system with an iso. Several people asked for an iso that supports
something else that pure x86. If sorcery aim is to be pure x86,
that simply _sucks_.
> Please try not to stray WAY off-topic in this discussion. This is a
> discussion about iso generation.
I am not off topic. sorcery is one really important point.
>
> I will stick with what I said in the meeting, which you didnt quite seem
> to understand, but I'll repeat for repitition sake :) Maybe it will get
> through this time? Lets see if it does.
I have understood, but your decision is not the right one.
About 10 people interested in other archs, and you dare to say "nah,
we'll just support x86". Do you have any idea of the number of people
that uses SMGL ? 10 people is quite a bunch !
>
> bi-arch is a feature of both the iso and sorcery, if you take a look
> at sorcery bugs theres quite a few other things to do already, if you
bi-arch is mainly a sorcery question. OK, there are others things to do,
but bi-arch is certainly not one of the features to consider as
unimportant.
> look at the iso team, we dont even have a consensus on how we're going
> to make isos or a reasonable installer, why would we try to spread our
we don't have a consensus on the way to follow. Why ? because the
leader didn't show any real path to follow. Now, as we need to progress,
we can't allow us to simply wait.
> (as you say) "already too small team" over another feature that only 10
> people need? If and when the iso team is going to commit to having
> bi-arch iso's and we have a consensus on iso generation (!) sorcery
> will be there with bi-arch support. As it stands currently like i said,
already too small team. that's perfectly right. Several sections are
unmaintained, bug number is still too high to have something we can
reasonnably call 1.0. And you want to kill a feature that would leave
something like 10 people offroad ? 10 people is important, do not
overestimate the people in and around SMGL.
> we dont even have the basics down yet, we have a very small iso team,
> we have a very small sorcery team, why would we implement your fringe
> feature over having an iso that the majority of the x86 world could use?
basics are there. we have a bi-arch iso in testing phase. i've even an
installed system thanks to it. Moreover, it is _not_ my "fringe feature",
i'm not the only one wanting to run a x86_64 system in native mode.
> 1) it wouldnt satisfy everyone, it would satisfy 10 people as you say
> in case 3 in fact, having a consensus on iso generation would mean
> better isos, which would satisfy quite a few more people than just 10.
> It would bring new users, given the experiences of users who try out
> 0.9.3 iso, im surprised we have /any/ new users.
Did you see any other iso better than that ? i've installed it
over a couple of boxes without any problem. And please, please,
stop saying people that what they do is crap. We're already too few.
Do you really want to maintain SMGL alone ?
> 2) its already in a sub-branch in its partially implemented form, which
> is actually less work for for "the already too small team" because we
> dont have to fix bugs related to it, or support it when only 10 people
> supposedly need it. However that doent mattter anyway because the
> feature isnt even fully documented or designed because for the reasons I
> ellaborated upon above, we're not ready with the basics of iso
> generation, so we're not going to go for some obscure feature that only
> 10 people want, when instead we could implement features that will
> benefit everyone /right now/.
It is not a partially implemented form, as we can have a complete system
with it.
the point is, we need to maintain a patched sorcery, and some patched
spells.
Meaning, more work to get that ongoing, because main branch doesn't want
to accept an already tested feature that works. And, again, please stop
considering 10 people is nothing. In rh, mdh, debian world ok, not here.
>
> 3) im not refusing to do this feature, im refusing to do it until we
> have a consensus on iso generation, a stream of reasonable uni-arch isos
> (oh yea those!) and its a commited iso team project in the near future.
A consensus ? well, do you really want 1.0 to come out this year ?
We're late, for sure, in year 2002 we were already discussing on 1.0 !
(for 2002, of course)
Waiting for a consensus, well if members don't try to progress, I'm afraid
we won't have another iso until, well, quite a long time.
>
> Ive said before and again, that when the iso team is actually functional
> and capable of addressing more advanced projects sorcery will be there
> to greet it, but right now theres a lot of other work to be done first.
ISO team is a mess. why ? no real leadership. one wants an iso spell.
another one wants new features. one reworking existing scripts. another
one
working on splitting scripts. and another one working on improving this
and that.
Features being refused, new things that simply don't work etc.
ISO team is forking on its own ! Too few people, working on different
things,
instead of working on things that have proven to work, even if they're not
perfect. Did you say that 10 people were meaningless ?
>
> I dont really have time to repeat this anymore, so please think
> carefully about bringing up bi-arch support and re-hashing the same
> questions. Im not saying we cant ever talk about this feature, its just
> I am going to have the same answer for you until the things ive said
> change.
Rehashing the same question is important, esapecially when decisions
taken are not the right ones. Taking volunteering people off, is not only
losing users.
As it is late here, i will reply in the same mail for several people:
to Karsten: "Time is not to worry about new features". But that's the
reason
new versions of sorcery and smgl 1.0 are postponed. And you want to
neglect already tested features that will satisfy a bunch of devs and
users ?
Concerning ISO, and getting from a one-man dev to a decentralized model,
when benoit was creating isos (or myself), in 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 days, there
was a small team, but we were working hand in hand. So decentralized
was functionnal. Now it doesn't because some think that existing things
aren't good enough, even if these things have created more than 10 isos.
Everyone's working in his corner, winning for approval, waiting for lead.
Where will we land, or at least most of us ? in a trash. that's
ridiculous.
What a waste of time :( About buggy installer, i must have tried,
installed
something like a hundred isos. Buggy installer, as you said, is not so
buggy. OK, it hits a couple users, (a FB joke prolly) but that really far
from
a majority. Every program has bugs, and installer don't have really
serious
ones.
To Seth: Bi-Arch isn't important ? we have something like 30 people
in and around smgl (devs, bug reporters, testers). And you want to get
rid of 10 !? Pure 64 bits ? quite a bunch of programs simply won't run
or compile in a pure 64 bits environment. Can you tell your users, your
boss, or yourself, I won't use that proggy anymore ? I can't.
"hmmm sorry guy, you'll have to forget that one, doesn't work with your
new system. evolution is great don't you think ?" About having a good new
basic ISO ongoing, are the previous ones not good enough ? Did
anyone give kiss-the-ass new isos ? No.
Perforce, a nice tool. Well could be. Doesn't support symlinks, history
seems to be lost when files are moved (i'm far from a p4 expert so i hope
i don't say
any mistake). We can't merge that feat, oops, sorry, that's simply people
that don't
want an interesting tested feature. Having three iso codebase is simply
crazyness
in smgl situation. losing time, making 1.0 an illusionnary goal, being
postponed,
and postponed, and... You say you weren't able to contribute to ISO, but
as far as
i can remember, i was the one who commited scripts into p4. I've _never_
rejected
someone who tried to help. Even if i'm a crappy leader (and I know it).
Your install
guide was integrated for example. You're also talking about leaving
skunkwork dev
style, letting people help. Why the hell is devel grimoire still not
available to people
other than devs ? Aren't free/gpl/ open source software supposed to let
anyone see
and contribute to stuff ? There is _no_ french sector. BearPerson, erics,
sandalle,
alley_cat, hamish, and loads of others were/are part of the team. isos
were created
by several people, adam, hamish, benoit, karsten, myself...you're talking
as if there
were some kind of lock on iso. that's wrong. You're talking about a single
arch iso,
but, ppc isos are already existing, x86_64 is coming, and you want to
simply forget them,
so x86 can be more stable, and then give more work to get (again) pcc and
x86_64 ?
To David: No, we are not close to 1.0, it has been postponed for at least
a month.
But I'll bet on at least 4 given the current situation. Quite big features
are to be
implemented in sorcery (correct resurrect etc) so why not bi-arch ? Don't
you want
To attract new users ?

So, at last, to conclude (1:00am here, need to go to bed).
Sorry for being rough, and maybe rude. I just want smgl to keep improving,
so,
things are better when they are said. I don't want to spit on anyone. If
ones can't bear
my opinions, then so be it. I don't want to give orders to anyone. But
take smgl history,
the "other" fork (lunar, not to name it), has got 1.0 out months ago. We
are still
fearing to recompile glibc, aliens... Let's be brave. We have not been
good (myself
included) as managers to get smgl right. D'ont you think it is time to
lose pride,
recognize our errors, forget our pitifull quarrels between french, and
whatever,
take _decisions_ (without letting letting the third off the team
off-side;) so we can
really progress and try to respect at last a realistic roadmap ? (please
forget
i think that, we should, it would be better to etc).
Bah, I was pretty upset tonight. I hope that will lead to something better
(forget flames, i will ignore, but if your comments are too insulting).
PS: sorry for the typos (there must have some).
PS2: i hope i've been clear enough, english isn't my mother language.
Regards,
--
Laurent Wandrebeck FreeNode irc nick: low
GNU/Linux user #114549
/~\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\_/ Stop HTML mail and news
/ \




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page