[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] cvs, servers and stuff.



* Laurence Vanek (lvanek@charter.net) wrote:
> Lyle Kempler wrote:
> > Looking at get-e.org, the download page points to the E17 User's
> > Guide, which starts with "Installing from CVS". If we instead
> > changed the download page to "download this script and run it,
> > you'll need wget and tar and bzip2 and ..", then new users could
> > convert over without even having to concern themselves about CVS. If
> > the script had the ability to download only a portion of the tree --
> > say, "minimal" vs "gadgets" vs "full", etc -- that might also
> > increase everyone's milage. I think a lot of this is people just get
> > everything because they're not familar enough to know what they need
> > or what might be cool (of course this all goes back to packaging, no
> > official recent releases.. etc). The script could even check
> > dependencies (which may lower the number of questions we get). IIRC,
> > someone may have even proposed this a long time ago..
> so these scripts would build all EFL & some set of applications (who
> decides what applications?).  Of course we are assuming that these all
> build without issue, as in "alice in wonderland".  I have no trust in
> scripts for the entire build process when we are talking about
> pre-alpha software.

Why is it when we suggest convienence solutions, people respond
defensively? This is not an attack on your ability to keep using
anoncvs, building things by hand, or whatever your specific desired
working methodology is. Enlightenment is about providing you with
_options_. The script _could_ feasibly (easily) simply have a
--download-only feature. It _could_ feasibly give up as soon as an error
is found, hell, if we had warningless builds, it _could_ feasibly tell
GCC to stop on a warning. Or you could simply not use those settings.
You don't have to trust anything you don't want to.

But, I suspect (and I'll say it again, it's a guess) that a lot of users
are willing to try it, and with some practice, we might be able to get a
lot of milage out of it. If that's not what you're after, then keep
using anoncvs or rsync or the freedesktop tarballs, and build it
yourself.

> > IMO (and it's a somewhat uninformed one as of late), most users want
> > access to "product" and the obstacles to installation send them
> > looking to anoncvs.
> You have taken a poll of what all users want?

I expected "it's a somewhat uninformed one as of late" to implicitly
translate to a response of "no, I haven't taken a poll of what all users
want". Read what I said; you shouldn't have to ask that.

> Some of us (users) are trying to contribute by staying close to the
> development by building, from scratch, on the various Linux O/S
> flavors to quickly surface issues.  The hope is that it aids the
> cause.  Admittedly, perhaps we are not your eventual std end users.

You say it for me: "some of us". I don't think anyone, the whole context
of the conversation, has ever wanted to prevent you from contributing,
however you achieve that. My suggesting tarballs, or any of the other
suggestions made by others, are an attempt to improve performance and
possibly make things easier for those who are interested. No more.

> Eventually, when e17 is released I will be working with rpm's on this
> Fedora Core system.  For now I build from scratch.

And that's fine -- finding bugs is a huge advantage of open source
software, and we all welcome the help. Don't take these suggestions as
an affront to that.

> > I'd like to believe that, though instant access to changes is
> > alluring, (just look at news sites).. :)
> For me, I consider it more than alluring.

Relax; we're not raising the price. :)

term