From: Ben R. <be...@cu...> - 2001-05-19 11:06:54
|
I'm working on getting an HP Binary port done. It's not going well... HP doesn't ship full Xlibs with HP-UX 10.20, making you buy a devel kit. That means that to get E compiled I need to either get the devel kit ($$$) or use a MIT X (which defeats most of the purpse, who's going to install E for HPUX if you have to completely replace X). I'm gonna give HP-UX 11.00 a shot, since there are more developer resources for it, but I may have trouble there too. So, the questions are: 1) Does anyone have any good understanding of HP-UX development, and how I can get the libs? 2) Does anyone want, or know of anyone who wants, E for HP-UX? At this point I'm really just gearing up to distribute E for HP just cause from time to time someone blows in and wants one. I don't know if its really worth the effort, but I bought a HP 712 just for the purpose, so I might as well get my moneys worth and do what I bought it for. If the HP build is actually useful, I may move on to a AIX port, but I HIGHLY doubt anyone would notice.... it'd be about as useful as a UNICOS/mk port. <grin> BTW, I should report that the E for Solaris build is still very popular. Between E and it's dependants (img libs, imlib, freetype, gtk, etc), I've had 13495 downloads between now and Oct 28th 2000. So we're rockin along. As DR17 continues to mature I'll start working on the Solaris build for it, but I've had significant issues with FAM on Solaris. A problem that was solved by someone (can't remember)... anyway, now that DR17 is becoming more stable and "usable", I can start tweeking makefiles and such to get it over. We'll see what happens. Any other builds people want? IRIX, Tru64, etc? benr. |
From: <Val...@vt...> - 2001-05-21 13:56:45
|
On Sat, 19 May 2001 04:12:00 PDT, Ben Rockwood <be...@cu...> said: > If the HP build is actually useful, I may move on to a AIX port, but I > HIGHLY doubt anyone would notice.... it'd be about as useful as a UNICOS/mk > port. <grin> Already done, it wasn't a big deal once I understood how to beat libtool into submission.... I need to double-check what will come bundled with AIX 5.1 as well.... /Valdis |
From: <ra...@ra...> - 2001-05-23 01:58:10
|
On 19 May, Ben Rockwood scribbled: > I'm working on getting an HP Binary port done. It's not going well... > HP doesn't ship full Xlibs with HP-UX 10.20, making you buy a devel > kit. That means that to get E compiled I need to either get the devel > kit ($$$) or use a MIT X (which defeats most of the purpse, who's going > to install E for HPUX if you have to completely replace X). > I'm gonna give HP-UX 11.00 a shot, since there are more developer resources > for it, but I may have trouble there too. > > So, the questions are: > 1) Does anyone have any good understanding of HP-UX development, and how > I can get the libs? > 2) Does anyone want, or know of anyone who wants, E for HP-UX? > > At this point I'm really just gearing up to distribute E for HP just > cause from time to time someone blows in and wants one. I don't know > if its really worth the effort, but I bought a HP 712 just for the purpose, > so I might as well get my moneys worth and do what I bought it for. > > If the HP build is actually useful, I may move on to a AIX port, but I > HIGHLY doubt anyone would notice.... it'd be about as useful as a UNICOS/mk > port. <grin> > > BTW, I should report that the E for Solaris build is still very popular. > Between E and it's dependants (img libs, imlib, freetype, gtk, etc), I've > had 13495 downloads between now and Oct 28th 2000. So we're rockin along. > As DR17 continues to mature I'll start working on the Solaris build for it, > but I've had significant issues with FAM on Solaris. A problem that > was solved by someone (can't remember)... anyway, now that DR17 is becoming > more stable and "usable", I can start tweeking makefiles and such to get it > over. We'll see what happens. i'd like to point out first.. 1. the work you are doing is very valuable - any fixes and patches you may have or documentation to help others build it woudl be good - get the patches back into cvs as soon as you feel they are celan and reaqdy to go 2. the fam issue right now is that efsd uses fam. fam is good - its useful - but it is possile ot make efsd be written not to use fam - it woudl have to be able to do a polling mode itself, like fam, as well as be able to use the new dnotify kernel features - and i understand there is a bsd equivalent somehwere too. anyoen who is interested shoudl co-ordinate with cK on this and work on it. it would be handy in the end to to require fam - but onyl have it as an option :) -- --------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ra...@ra... ra...@va... VA Linux Systems ra...@de... Mobile Phone: +1 408 887 3163 Work Phone: +1 510 687 7069 |
From: Kirth <ki...@ho...> - 2001-05-23 10:11:30
|
Ok, I might as well do something, I have a HP desktop thingie (a pa-risc one) running hp-ux and since i managed to get most things working under a bizzare hack of gcc + cplus libs (this is irix i talking about) i figure hp-ux cant be that much harder ;) So I guess I'll lend a hand. I cannot umm borrow the machine becuase it belongs to my company, but I can during work time spare a bit of time to coding * ra...@ra... (ra...@ra...) wrote: > On 19 May, Ben Rockwood scribbled: > > I'm working on getting an HP Binary port done. It's not going well... > > HP doesn't ship full Xlibs with HP-UX 10.20, making you buy a devel > > kit. That means that to get E compiled I need to either get the devel > > kit ($$$) or use a MIT X (which defeats most of the purpse, who's going > > to install E for HPUX if you have to completely replace X). > > I'm gonna give HP-UX 11.00 a shot, since there are more developer resources > > for it, but I may have trouble there too. > > > > So, the questions are: > > 1) Does anyone have any good understanding of HP-UX development, and how > > I can get the libs? > > 2) Does anyone want, or know of anyone who wants, E for HP-UX? > > > > At this point I'm really just gearing up to distribute E for HP just > > cause from time to time someone blows in and wants one. I don't know > > if its really worth the effort, but I bought a HP 712 just for the purpose, > > so I might as well get my moneys worth and do what I bought it for. > > > > If the HP build is actually useful, I may move on to a AIX port, but I > > HIGHLY doubt anyone would notice.... it'd be about as useful as a UNICOS/mk > > port. <grin> > > > > BTW, I should report that the E for Solaris build is still very popular. > > Between E and it's dependants (img libs, imlib, freetype, gtk, etc), I've > > had 13495 downloads between now and Oct 28th 2000. So we're rockin along. > > As DR17 continues to mature I'll start working on the Solaris build for it, > > but I've had significant issues with FAM on Solaris. A problem that > > was solved by someone (can't remember)... anyway, now that DR17 is becoming > > more stable and "usable", I can start tweeking makefiles and such to get it > > over. We'll see what happens. > > i'd like to point out first.. > 1. the work you are doing is very valuable - any fixes and patches you > may have or documentation to help others build it woudl be good - get > the patches back into cvs as soon as you feel they are celan and reaqdy > to go > 2. the fam issue right now is that efsd uses fam. fam is good - its > useful - but it is possile ot make efsd be written not to use fam - it > woudl have to be able to do a polling mode itself, like fam, as well as > be able to use the new dnotify kernel features - and i understand there > is a bsd equivalent somehwere too. anyoen who is interested shoudl > co-ordinate with cK on this and work on it. it would be handy in the > end to to require fam - but onyl have it as an option :) > > -- > --------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------------- > The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ra...@ra... ra...@va... > VA Linux Systems ra...@de... > Mobile Phone: +1 408 887 3163 Work Phone: +1 510 687 7069 > > > _______________________________________________ > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > Enl...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel |
From: Christian K. <kre...@in...> - 2001-05-23 16:11:24
|
ra...@ra... wrote: > > 2. the fam issue right now is that efsd uses fam. fam is good - its > useful - but it is possile ot make efsd be written not to use fam - it > woudl have to be able to do a polling mode itself, like fam, as well as > be able to use the new dnotify kernel features - and i understand there > is a bsd equivalent somehwere too. anyoen who is interested shoudl > co-ordinate with cK on this and work on it. it would be handy in the > end to to require fam - but onyl have it as an option :) Yep. Btw, do we have a general maintainer/packager? I need someone who can reliably check, correct and maintain the spec files for efsd and imlib2_loaders. Patches appreciated. Efsd in particular needs a pthread version and a non-threaded version. Same goes for Debian -- Lawrence, are you around? Cheers, -- Christian. ________________________________________________________________________ mailto:kre...@cs... |
From: <ra...@ra...> - 2001-05-24 23:56:46
|
On 23 May, Christian Kreibich scribbled: > ra...@ra... wrote: > > > > 2. the fam issue right now is that efsd uses fam. fam is good - its > > useful - but it is possile ot make efsd be written not to use fam - it > > woudl have to be able to do a polling mode itself, like fam, as well as > > be able to use the new dnotify kernel features - and i understand there > > is a bsd equivalent somehwere too. anyoen who is interested shoudl > > co-ordinate with cK on this and work on it. it would be handy in the > > end to to require fam - but onyl have it as an option :) > > Yep. Btw, do we have a general maintainer/packager? I need someone who nup... this guy woudl probably be "release god" ie - developerrs say "done. ready for release" and the developer ups the version. release god takes over form here - makes sure the package builds cleanly and fixes & patches as needed (or if its highly complex communicates with the developer), he makes sure packages are built (rpm's for redhat, mandrake, suse etc.) and makes surr the debian people upstream know about the release nd works with them to makie sure debian gets the new release in their system asap. they make binary packages and are pretty much in charge of releasing the software once they see fit (ie when they think its ready) - we coudl have a team of these guys - but that woudl pretty much be their responsibility. they need to make sure the web team knows about the release and brew up an appropriate news item, make sure freshmeat, sourceforge etc. have all the files and latest release numbers, etc. they basically are in charge of how long it takes to release from there - if its a day or its weeks or months - thats up to them - think of it as qa. we could do with an organised team of these people - like lyle is organising the web team... htese guys get to have the glory of putitng their names on the packages as the package maintainer & release engineer :) > can reliably check, correct and maintain the spec files for efsd and > imlib2_loaders. Patches appreciated. Efsd in particular needs a pthread > version and a non-threaded version. Same goes for Debian -- Lawrence, > are you around? > > Cheers, > -- Christian. > ________________________________________________________________________ > mailto:kre...@cs... > > _______________________________________________ > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > Enl...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- --------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ra...@ra... ra...@va... VA Linux Systems ra...@de... Mobile Phone: +1 408 887 3163 Work Phone: +1 510 687 7069 |
From: Mark B. <ma...@cy...> - 2001-05-25 14:04:08
|
Rasterman [ra...@ra...] wrote: > nup... this guy woudl probably be "release god" ie - developerrs say > "done. ready for release" and the developer ups the version. release > god takes over form here - makes sure the package builds cleanly and > fixes & patches as needed (or if its highly complex communicates with > the developer), he makes sure packages are built (rpm's for redhat, > mandrake, suse etc.) and makes surr the debian people upstream know [snip] > they think its ready) - we coudl have a team of these guys - but that > woudl pretty much be their responsibility. they need to make sure the > web team knows about the release and brew up an appropriate news item, > make sure freshmeat, sourceforge etc. have all the files and latest > release numbers, etc. [snip] Oooh. Hey, now /that/ is something I can help with. If you want someone to take over managing the RPM spec file and the testing/etc that goes along with it I hereby volunteer for the job. ;-) At least on the x86 side. I'm afraid I don't have any other hardware types to test on. (Heh...this is of course assuming this was a general message and not specific to the HP-UX port. ;-) I'm afraid I deleted the original message w/out reading it.) Mark |
From: Lyle K. <te...@ke...> - 2001-05-25 17:09:43
|
* Mark Bainter (ma...@cy...) wrote: > Rasterman [ra...@ra...] wrote: > > nup... this guy woudl probably be "release god" ie - developerrs say > > "done. ready for release" and the developer ups the version. release > > god takes over form here - makes sure the package builds cleanly and > > fixes & patches as needed (or if its highly complex communicates with > > the developer), he makes sure packages are built (rpm's for redhat, > > mandrake, suse etc.) and makes surr the debian people upstream know Well, I've done some of them in the past. But I don't have the time anymore, and I've been phasing redhat out of my network anyway ;) > Oooh. Hey, now /that/ is something I can help with. If you want someone to > take over managing the RPM spec file and the testing/etc that goes along with > it I hereby volunteer for the job. ;-) At least on the x86 side. I'm afraid > I don't have any other hardware types to test on. I asked someone on the web team to be the "release maintainer", and someone volunteered (I apologize for not remembering who, but I wrote it down :). If you can create the releases, this person can manage them and make sure people can access them, etc. How's that? term |
From: Ben R. <be...@cu...> - 2001-05-25 20:17:41
|
If such a team is put together I'd be interested making sure that we lay some rules down. Namely, that version numbers stay under the control of Raster (I can just see someone desciding it was 1.0 time... that wouldn't be a pretty discussion). Then we'd have to just divide up into groups of maintainers. I'll take Solaris/Sparc. I don't like RPM or Debian, but I know many of you do. Then we also need to make sure that all platforms that people want are supported, namely Linux (RPM and DEB), AIX (4.3.3 and 5L), HP-UX (10.20, hopefully, and 11), Solaris Sparc 2.6 (compatable for 2.6, 7, 8), Solaris x86. The distros I'm debating now (but don't wanna persue) would be IRIX, Tru64/DECUnix, and FreeBSD x86. At the moment, looks like we're supported something like this: AIX 4.3.3/5L: IBM Solaris/Sparc 2.6: Cuddletech HP-UX 10.20/11: PENDING (Cuddletech) IRIX: None Known/Planned Tru64: LOL FreeBSD: FreeBSD Group RPM/DEB: E Core Devel If anyone on the list has done ports, it's time to let everyone know. There is one thing I'd like to see changed in E (and FNLIB, IMLIB, etc), which would be "movability". Lots of Solaris users can't use my packages because if they try to install 'em into a place other than were I compiled 'em to install (/usr/local) the build breaks. So non-root holding users have to compile themselves. I've tried to code out these issues but had little luck. If everything can be found via relitive paths instead of absolute (ie: "../lib/something.so" instead of "/usr/local/lib/something.so"), that'd be a solution too. benr > * Mark Bainter (ma...@cy...) wrote: >> Rasterman [ra...@ra...] wrote: >> > nup... this guy woudl probably be "release god" ie - developerrs say >> > "done. ready for release" and the developer ups the version. release >> > god takes over form here - makes sure the package builds cleanly and >> > fixes & patches as needed (or if its highly complex communicates >> > with the developer), he makes sure packages are built (rpm's for >> > redhat, mandrake, suse etc.) and makes surr the debian people >> > upstream know > > Well, I've done some of them in the past. But I don't have the time > anymore, and I've been phasing redhat out of my network anyway ;) > >> Oooh. Hey, now /that/ is something I can help with. If you want >> someone to take over managing the RPM spec file and the testing/etc >> that goes along with it I hereby volunteer for the job. ;-) At least >> on the x86 side. I'm afraid I don't have any other hardware types to >> test on. > > I asked someone on the web team to be the "release maintainer", and > someone volunteered (I apologize for not remembering who, but I wrote > it down :). If you can create the releases, this person can manage them > and make sure people can access them, etc. How's that? > > term > > _______________________________________________ > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > Enl...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel |
From: Jeremy N. <ish...@ho...> - 2001-05-25 20:44:01
|
I am an avid FreeBSD user and can contribute(head up maybe?) a FreeBSD group and thus would like to ensure that enlightenment runs on this platform I'm not a terribly skilled progammer or anything, but I can hack my way through basic porting of software. I already maintain edb, imlib2, evas, ecore, and gevas in the FreeBSD ports collection. Also, I can verify that right now, cvs e17 builds and runs for FreeBSD/i386. Jeremy On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 01:22:27PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > If such a team is put together I'd be interested making sure that > we lay some rules down. Namely, that version numbers stay under the > control of Raster (I can just see someone desciding it was 1.0 time... > that wouldn't be a pretty discussion). Then we'd have to just > divide up into groups of maintainers. I'll take Solaris/Sparc. > I don't like RPM or Debian, but I know many of you do. Then we > also need to make sure that all platforms that people want are supported, > namely Linux (RPM and DEB), AIX (4.3.3 and 5L), HP-UX (10.20, hopefully, > and 11), Solaris Sparc 2.6 (compatable for 2.6, 7, 8), Solaris x86. > The distros I'm debating now (but don't wanna persue) would be IRIX, > Tru64/DECUnix, and FreeBSD x86. > > At the moment, looks like we're supported something like this: > AIX 4.3.3/5L: IBM > Solaris/Sparc 2.6: Cuddletech > HP-UX 10.20/11: PENDING (Cuddletech) > IRIX: None Known/Planned > Tru64: LOL > FreeBSD: FreeBSD Group > RPM/DEB: E Core Devel > > If anyone on the list has done ports, it's time to let everyone know. > > There is one thing I'd like to see changed in E (and FNLIB, IMLIB, etc), > which would be "movability". Lots of Solaris users can't use my packages > because if they try to install 'em into a place other than were I compiled > 'em to install (/usr/local) the build breaks. So non-root holding users > have to compile themselves. I've tried to code out these issues but > had little luck. If everything can be found via relitive paths instead of > absolute (ie: "../lib/something.so" instead of > "/usr/local/lib/something.so"), that'd be a solution too. > > benr > > > > > > > * Mark Bainter (ma...@cy...) wrote: > >> Rasterman [ra...@ra...] wrote: > >> > nup... this guy woudl probably be "release god" ie - developerrs say > >> > "done. ready for release" and the developer ups the version. release > >> > god takes over form here - makes sure the package builds cleanly and > >> > fixes & patches as needed (or if its highly complex communicates > >> > with the developer), he makes sure packages are built (rpm's for > >> > redhat, mandrake, suse etc.) and makes surr the debian people > >> > upstream know > > > > Well, I've done some of them in the past. But I don't have the time > > anymore, and I've been phasing redhat out of my network anyway ;) > > > >> Oooh. Hey, now /that/ is something I can help with. If you want > >> someone to take over managing the RPM spec file and the testing/etc > >> that goes along with it I hereby volunteer for the job. ;-) At least > >> on the x86 side. I'm afraid I don't have any other hardware types to > >> test on. > > > > I asked someone on the web team to be the "release maintainer", and > > someone volunteered (I apologize for not remembering who, but I wrote > > it down :). If you can create the releases, this person can manage them > > and make sure people can access them, etc. How's that? > > > > term > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > > Enl...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > Enl...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel |
From: Michael L. <mic...@ak...> - 2001-05-27 21:01:11
|
* Ben Rockwood (be...@cu...) wrote: > IRIX: None Known/Planned Someone at SGI has done packages of 0.16 up to 0.16.4, they are available at freeware.sgi.com -- .michael lea _/_/ "when in danger or in System Engineer _/_/ doubt, run in circles, mic...@ak... _/_/ scream and shout" |
From: <Val...@vt...> - 2001-05-25 20:49:41
|
On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:22:27 PDT, Ben Rockwood said: > At the moment, looks like we're supported something like this: > IRIX: None Known/Planned http://freeware.sgi.com/index-by-alpha.html lists E 0.16.4, among other things. So maybe... ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech |
From: Ben R. <be...@cu...> - 2001-05-26 09:07:46
|
I've updated the download page in CVS to reflect the links for IRIX and AIX. Thanx for the link to freeware! I'd been needing that. So, AIX and IRIX are done.... I just need to finish the damned HP port, and I need a link for the FreeBSD port. benr. > On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:22:27 PDT, Ben Rockwood said: > >> At the moment, looks like we're supported something like this: > >> IRIX: None Known/Planned > > http://freeware.sgi.com/index-by-alpha.html > > lists E 0.16.4, among other things. So maybe... ;) > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Operating Systems Analyst > Virginia Tech |
From: Kirth <ki...@ho...> - 2001-05-28 10:41:08
|
* Ben Rockwood (be...@cu...) wrote: > I've updated the download page in CVS to reflect the links for > IRIX and AIX. Thanx for the link to freeware! I'd been needing > that. > > So, AIX and IRIX are done.... I just need to finish the damned HP port, > and I need a link for the FreeBSD port. > > benr. > > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:22:27 PDT, Ben Rockwood said: > > > >> At the moment, looks like we're supported something like this: > > > >> IRIX: None Known/Planned > > > > http://freeware.sgi.com/index-by-alpha.html > > > > lists E 0.16.4, among other things. So maybe... ;) > > -- umm lemmie say something from experiance. While freeware.sgi looks great it aint as nice as you'd think. They compilie everything with ALL dependancies. So if it can use gnome, then they compilie with gnome. Now this might sound fine, but basically it means you pretty much have to install everything under the sun. So, I gave up with that idea and have been porting code to irix to make the damn thing compilie properly. I dont just mean E, i've been fighting with gettext, xchat,everybuddy,blackbox,icewm,sawfish,gdbm etc.. etc.. some time this week I should have a source tree hacked out for E and each of the bits of E that require modification to work. Oh, and do we want Lib, Lib32 or Lib64 versions ? ;) I personally use 64. -- Jaded @ opn/#e efnet/#dunno,#us-opers,#eu-opers,#uk,#rejected |
From: Michael L. <mic...@ak...> - 2001-05-29 14:21:47
|
* Kirth (ki...@ho...) wrote: > umm lemmie say something from experiance. While freeware.sgi looks great > it aint as nice as you'd think. They compilie everything with ALL > dependancies. So if it can use gnome, then they compilie with gnome. Yeah, I tend not to use the SGI packages because of that reason--however, IMHO whoever is the release manager should probably get in touch with whoever is the guy at SGI and coordinate with them to get the 'official' Enlightenment packages posted on their freeware site--of course, i'm really just talking out my ass since I am not involved with the release management at all :) -- .mazeone _/_/ "when in danger or in _/_/ doubt, run in circles, ma...@dc... _/_/ scream and shout" |
From: Lyle K. <te...@ke...> - 2001-05-29 18:02:55
|
* Michael Lea (mic...@ak...) wrote: > * Kirth (ki...@ho...) wrote: > Yeah, I tend not to use the SGI packages because of that reason--however, > IMHO whoever is the release manager should probably get in touch with whoever > is the guy at SGI and coordinate with them to get the 'official' Enlightenment > packages posted on their freeware site--of course, i'm really just talking > out my ass since I am not involved with the release management at all :) According to my records, Adam Lucas <ap...@uu...> volunteered to head releases. Anyone desiring to help get these out/straighted out should talk to him. If he's not interested anymore, please let me know. Actually, if he still is interested, tell him to let ME know? :) Thanks. term |
From: Ben R. <be...@cu...> - 2001-05-29 18:13:54
|
My current possition on IRIX is that it's backseat. Frankly, our core platforms are Linux, *BSD, and Solaris. HP and IRIX come in as second tier. AIX, DECUNIX/True64, and the rest are a distant third. I'd be very interested in rebuilding the IRIX packages for a "Officially Support IRIX Port of E", which didn't require anything outside the core requirements for E, but I don't have (and don't really want) an IRIX box. So at this point, if someone wants to put in the time to get a good, solid TARDIST put together for IRIX (I'd prefer a 6.2 build for upward binary compatablility) I'm all for it. Alternatly somone can buy me an SGI Indigo2. Unless I can come across a cheap SGI O2 (which I DO want) in the next month or so I'm gonna leave it to others to prep, lest it stay in the hands of sgifreeware. I think we'd probly make more people happy with a Solaris/x86 build than an IRIX build. benr. > * Kirth (ki...@ho...) wrote: > >> umm lemmie say something from experiance. While freeware.sgi looks >> great it aint as nice as you'd think. They compilie everything with >> ALL dependancies. So if it can use gnome, then they compilie with >> gnome. > > Yeah, I tend not to use the SGI packages because of that > reason--however, IMHO whoever is the release manager should probably > get in touch with whoever is the guy at SGI and coordinate with them to > get the 'official' Enlightenment packages posted on their freeware > site--of course, i'm really just talking out my ass since I am not > involved with the release management at all :) > > -- > .mazeone _/_/ "when in danger or in > _/_/ doubt, run in circles, > ma...@dc... _/_/ scream and shout" > > _______________________________________________ > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > Enl...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel |
From: Steve B. <br...@dw...> - 2001-05-29 18:43:42
|
Ben Rockwood wrote: > [..snippie-poo..] > > I think we'd probly make more people happy with a Solaris/x86 build than > an IRIX build. > I'd agree with that, although since I've got this SGI O2 on my desk right now while I wait for an Ultra 60 to free up to replace it I'll be happy to build a SGI tarball for the next release with all the supporting tools when it's all done and happy and ready for prime time. Currently I haven't been able to fiddle with teh CVS stuff since I can't get stuff from there with our firewalls (damn security, grumble grumble). -- Steve Brunton <br...@dw...> Phone: 404-827-2756 Chief Engineer Enterprise Systems One CNN Center, Atlanta GA CNN Internet Technologies ICBM: 84W 23' 45" 33N 45' 29" <*> I Suffer Occasional Delusions of Adequacy <*> |
From: Andrew S. <an...@ne...> - 2001-05-29 20:40:34
|
Steve Brunton said: > Currently I haven't been able to fiddle with teh CVS stuff since I > can't get stuff from there with our firewalls (damn security, grumble > grumble). Unofficial CVS tarballs can be found on ftp.neep.com.au by ftp and http. Andrew. -- Andrew Shugg <an...@ne...> http://www.neep.com.au/ "Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself." "Is there? Well I'd like to meet him. I could do with a good laugh." |
From: Kirth <ki...@ho...> - 2001-05-29 18:47:00
|
It might be back seat for you and 99% of the world, but since my current *nix desktop happens to be Irix, it's not back seat at all for me. What I was saying is that since I am building it for myself, I would make a tardist as well for everyone else. NOT that I am just doing this for ever one else. If i didnt use E, I wouldnt bother. The problem is SGI freeware, will not accept external packages becuase they do not know if they are "safe" or not (i've been through this with them already). So I was just going to release them on ftp://ftp.hole.org as I always did. * Ben Rockwood (be...@cu...) wrote: > My current possition on IRIX is that it's backseat. Frankly, our core > platforms are Linux, *BSD, and Solaris. HP and IRIX come in as second > tier. AIX, DECUNIX/True64, and the rest are a distant third. > > I'd be very interested in rebuilding the IRIX packages for a "Officially > Support IRIX Port of E", which didn't require anything outside the core > requirements for E, but I don't have (and don't really want) an IRIX box. > So at this point, if someone wants to put in the time to get a good, solid > TARDIST put together for IRIX (I'd prefer a 6.2 build for upward binary > compatablility) I'm all for it. Alternatly somone can buy me an SGI > Indigo2. Unless I can come across a cheap SGI O2 (which I DO want) in the > next month or so I'm gonna leave it to others to prep, lest it stay in > the hands of sgifreeware. > > I think we'd probly make more people happy with a Solaris/x86 build than > an IRIX build. > > benr. > > > > * Kirth (ki...@ho...) wrote: > > > >> umm lemmie say something from experiance. While freeware.sgi looks > >> great it aint as nice as you'd think. They compilie everything with > >> ALL dependancies. So if it can use gnome, then they compilie with > >> gnome. > > > > Yeah, I tend not to use the SGI packages because of that > > reason--however, IMHO whoever is the release manager should probably > > get in touch with whoever is the guy at SGI and coordinate with them to > > get the 'official' Enlightenment packages posted on their freeware > > site--of course, i'm really just talking out my ass since I am not > > involved with the release management at all :) > > > > -- > > .mazeone _/_/ "when in danger or in > > _/_/ doubt, run in circles, > > ma...@dc... _/_/ scream and shout" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > > Enl...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Enlightenment-devel mailing list > Enl...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- Jaded @ opn/#e efnet/#dunno,#us-opers,#eu-opers,#uk,#rejected |
From: Lyle K. <te...@ke...> - 2001-05-29 20:33:57
|
* Kirth (ki...@ho...) wrote: > It might be back seat for you and 99% of the world, but since my current > *nix desktop happens to be Irix, it's not back seat at all for me. What I > was saying is that since I am building it for myself, I would make a tardist > as well for everyone else. NOT that I am just doing this for ever one else. > If i didnt use E, I wouldnt bother. The problem is SGI freeware, will not > accept external packages becuase they do not know if they are "safe" or not > (i've been through this with them already). So I was just going to release > them on ftp://ftp.hole.org as I always did. I would be happy if you would consider making this release for the whole community. If you don't want the always lovable support responsibility that goes with that, that's fine, we'll work something out. But I would very much like to have an "official" IRIX version. > * Ben Rockwood (be...@cu...) wrote: > > My current possition on IRIX is that it's backseat. Frankly, our core > > platforms are Linux, *BSD, and Solaris. HP and IRIX come in as second > > tier. AIX, DECUNIX/True64, and the rest are a distant third. I see no reason why things have to be setup in tiers. This is a decently-sized community, and we can have multiple people building versions for a variety of platforms entirely in parallel, as you say: > > I'd be very interested in rebuilding the IRIX packages for a "Officially > > Support IRIX Port of E", which didn't require anything outside the core > > requirements for E, but I don't have (and don't really want) an IRIX box. > > So at this point, if someone wants to put in the time to get a good, solid > > TARDIST put together for IRIX (I'd prefer a 6.2 build for upward binary > > compatablility) I'm all for it. I myself have been fighting with my sol2.6/sparc setup for the last day or two trying to rebuild a number of packages, and my life would be that much easier if they worked out of the box (for starters, if every package did NOT assume it was a) on linux (/sbin/install-info) and b) did not assume I was going to be installing it as root, off of the root mountpoint). If I thought it would be useful, I'd be happy to get those packages built and distributed as srpms (since you'd have to build them for your home directory -- E hardcodes some paths). I'd like to think other people feel the same way. > > I think we'd probly make more people happy with a Solaris/x86 build than > > an IRIX build. This is probably true, but all you're saying is that is what you plan to work on. And that's great. So others will get the other Unix builds working. term |
From: <Val...@vt...> - 2001-05-28 18:52:56
|
On Mon, 28 May 2001 11:55:52 BST, Kirth said: > xchat,everybuddy,blackbox,icewm,sawfish,gdbm etc.. etc.. some time this > week I should have a source tree hacked out for E and each of the bits of E > that require modification to work. Oh, and do we want Lib, Lib32 or Lib64 > versions ? ;) I personally use 64. Build with -n32 - machines that need -o32 are so lame as to be astounding, and there ARE Irix 6.5 boxes that dont do -64. There's a big performance difference between n32 and o32 - it's not always clear that -64 is any faster than n32... If you're *REALLY* ambitious, build -n32 and -64 versions of the libraries. Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech |