Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Teh Future

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sukneet Basuta <sukneet AT gmail.com>
  • To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Teh Future
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:39:50 -0500

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Vlad Glagolev <stealth AT sourcemage.org> wrote:
> The only real problem I see about spells in general -- is a lack of sane
> documentation for new users/developers, which was buried in our ancient
> wiki. But in the near future I plan to collect them in one doc-place
> with updated information, according to our current status of
> development in sorcery and updated grimoire functions.

I think the current documentation is pretty decent. I learned most of
what I know about spell writing from it. It could use some updating,
however, and probably some information about FUNCTIONS.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:06 PM, David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org> wrote:
> Computer time is less valuable than people time. I'm not concerned about
> the miniscule amount of time, even cumulatively, that will be lostby
> doing more computational work. Making the people time more efficient is
> the whole reason computers exist, and is of greater priority.

+1 Computation time is cheap. Developer time is expensive, especially
in Source Mage it seems.
Personally, I don't care if we use a single file or many -- IMO it
shouldn't make writing a spell any easier or simpler (Fedora's single
spec files are pretty daunting though). The syntax and structure of
the files will have a greater impact. However, if we still have the
cruft found in some spells, I'd probably prefer separate files.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:32 PM, David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org> wrote:
> It would appear that you and I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe
> updating a website to make it look prettier will do anything other than
> make a website look prettier. We've changed our website many times in
> the past, and all it did was make work for the administrator of the
> server. We've never once gained a user because we have a pretty web
> site. ISO is one of my priorities, and I have already detailed the plan
> to get there in another mail, and so I will not repeat myself here.

AFAIK, we've never had a pretty web site. We may have never gained a
user because of it, but there is a good chance that we have lost
potential users. If I was looking for a new distro to try today, I'd
skip over Source Mage because, based on the website (which is what I
generally look at when I look at new distros), it seems like we are
dead. Granted, a big part of that is because the iso is so old (and
the newer chroot isn't easily found). Lunar Linux's iso is pretty
dated as well, but they at least seem alive based on their website.
I'd be more inclined to give them a try because of that.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:12 PM, flux <flux AT sourcemage.org> wrote:
> While it may be easier to create init scripts for systemd, you still
> haven't pointed out what simpleinit cannot do that systemd can (if we
> aren't looking at how easy it is to do so).

The main reasons I want a more modern init system is because
simpleinit can't do parallel startup, it can't auto-restart processes,
and it doens't support process segregation using cgroups (you can
probably do it manually with simpleinit, but its more work :p). I can
understand why some people wouldn't care about or want those things
though.

I agree that having a choice of init system would be preferable.
Systemd does support sysv init scripts, so if we do go with it, we
should hopefully be able to use the same init scripts for both it and
simpleinit. To use all the features of systemd I believe you have to
use systemd files though.


It looks like most of us that replied agree that changes have to be
made to Source Mage, so hopefully it will live well past 1.0.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page