[SSI-devel] new release tarball suggestion & build platform on 9.0 please

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 454-5900

Hello SSI people

The size difference is immaterial in terms of download
speed, so why not include everything, just release one
package, park the extras in a directory labeled as
such. IMO that reduces confusion. 

When I try a new download and their are lots of
different versions such as the source, the RPM, the
binary (for several platforms), the elf versions, the
i386 versions, the IA64, the sun, blah, blah, blah
versions you have to make sure you pick the right
thing. It makes me weary when you have a bunch of
choices. 

So my humble suggestion is one source, one RPM. If the
RPM fails, you try the source.

More importantly, Having installed SSI many, many 
times, I found that redhat versions and SSI versions
sometimes 'GO' together. I can't explain it. Sometimes
they mesh well, and sometimes they fail, mostly when
building for GFS. I think it has to do with the 2.4.18
kernel not being in the same 'lifetime' as RH 9.0 or
very old versions of RH.  

My suggestion is to please build and test all on RH
9.0 and a kernel that is in the same 'lifetime', yet
still stable. Also, make it obvious that you added
these extra packages during your install (ie, tftp,
nasm, dhcp, perl mods, whatever). Dont hide those
important details  

If all these points have been ironed out already,
then, dismiss me as some cretin, who should dare not
speak in the first place.

Jeff

--- ssi...@li...
wrote:
> Send ssic-linux-devel mailing list submissions to
> 	ssi...@li...
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	ssi...@li...
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ssi...@li...
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ssic-linux-devel digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Couple characters missing in i386/ssi_arch.pm
> on OPENSSI-RH branch (Hinchley, Scott)
>    2. Re: [RFC] Two proposals for releases (Brian J.
> Watson)
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:51:04 -0500
> From: "Hinchley, Scott" <sco...@hp...>
> To: <ssi...@li...>
> Subject: [SSI-devel] Couple characters missing in
> i386/ssi_arch.pm on OPENSSI-RH branch
> 
> May be in vanilla as well
> 
> --- openssi-tools/arch/i386/ssi_arch.pm.org    
> 2003-06-25
> 08:33:18.000000000 -0500
> +++ openssi-tools/arch/i386/ssi_arch.pm 2003-06-25
> 08:38:26.000000000
> -0500
> @@ -41,11 +41,11 @@
>  sub parselilo {
>         my $liloconf =3D shift;
>         my @initrds;
> -       my $input_line,$initrd_index,@this_initrd;
> +       my ($input_line,$initrd_index,@this_initrd);
> 
>         open LILO, "< $liloconf" or die "Can't open
> $liloconf: $!\n";
>         while (! eof(LILO) ) {
> -               $input_line =3D <LILO>
> +               $input_line =3D <LILO>;
>                 if ( $input_line !~
> /^\s+initrd=3D(\S+)/ ) {
>                         next;
>                 }
> 
> 
> Laterness
> sjh
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:38:56 -0700
> From: "Brian J. Watson" <Bri...@hp...>
> To: OpenSSI developers
> <ssi...@li...>,
> 	OpenSSI users
> <ssi...@li...>
> Subject: [SSI-devel] Re: [RFC] Two proposals for
> releases
> 
> Brian J. Watson wrote:
> > 2) Modified base code in the OpenSSI _source_
> release will be 
> > distributed as patches against the base source.
> I've done this since the 
> > beginning for the kernel code. I'm proposing that
> I also do this for 
> > util-linux, e2fsprogs, devfsd, and anything else
> we need to modify. This 
> > will make downloads smaller, since the unmodified
> base code doesn't need 
> > to be included. The trade-off is that it will be
> harder to build. To do 
> > this, a user must separately download source for
> util-linux, e2fsprogs, 
> > etc., manually apply patches against them, and
> build each according to 
> > its own instructions. Of course, complete RPMs
> will be provided in 
> > _binary_ OpenSSI releases.
> 
> I have a rough comparison of sizes for this
> proposal. If we include 
> complete source for the modified base utilities, the
> bzipped size is 5.9 
> MB. If we just include patches against the base
> utilities, the bzipped 
> size is 3.3 MB. This size difference between these
> two approaches will 
> probably grow in the future as we modify more base
> utilities.
> 
> Like I said, it would be a bit more cumbersome to
> build with the patch 
> approach. The Makefiles wouldn't do much more than
> build and install 
> openssi-tools. A user would have to do the rest of
> the work of 
> downloading the source for the base utilities,
> manually applying the 
> patch for each one, and building them.
> 
> Does anybody have a preference for which way we
> should go? Remember that 
> users of our binary releases will be unaffected by
> this decision.
> 
> -Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ssic-linux-devel mailing list
> ssi...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel
> 
> 
> End of ssic-linux-devel Digest

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com