Thread: [SSI-users] [RFC] Two proposals for releases
Brought to you by:
brucewalker,
rogertsang
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2003-06-24 04:22:45
|
I'm in the process of rolling the 0.9.8 releases of CI and OpenSSI. In the interest of stream-rolling _source_ releases, I make the following two proposals: 1) The _source_ release of OpenSSI will no longer include CI code. CI will have to be downloaded and built separately. The two were packaged together in the past because there was no binary releases of OpenSSI. I wanted to make things as easy as possible for the novice user. These days we do have binary releases, so I'm much less inclined mash together the CI and OpenSSI repositories every time I roll an OpenSSI release. Of course, CI code will continue to be compiled as part of _binary_ OpenSSI releases. 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'm open to debate about these proposals. Let me know what you think, Brian |
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2003-06-26 02:38:25
|
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 |
From: Aneesh K. K.V <ane...@di...> - 2003-06-26 04:14:05
|
Hi, I would say a few releases to carry the entire source tar. This can continue until the binary releases are stable and all issues w.r.t binary releases are solved. This will help the user to switch to source release if they find any problems with the binary releases. In the long term i will say, more importance should be given to the binary releases and source releases can carry just the patches. -aneesh |
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2003-06-27 00:21:04
|
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Hi, > > I would say a few releases to carry the entire source tar. This can > continue until the binary releases are stable and all issues w.r.t > binary releases are solved. This will help the user to switch to source > release if they find any problems with the binary releases. > > In the long term i will say, more importance should be given to the > binary releases and source releases can carry just the patches. I agree. I'll include the full source for now. I think I'll also include a redundant set of patches against the base source. They're rather small and could be useful for someone who wants to try patching against a newer version of a base utility. -Brian |