On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Scott C. Best wrote:
> George:
>
> Sorry for the late reply...
Not a problem. I've only off-and-on been paying attention to e-mail and
stuff I've been working on the past few days.
> I more or less agree with your generalization. I think
> Eigerstein proves your point substantially. Recall LRP without
That was pretty much what I was thinking. The design basics of
EigerStein's setup and install are what I want in that Basic image. (And
the Win32 executable bit doesn't hurt much either. =)
> > The problem then becomes where we draw the line between the two.
>
> Perhaps a way to think about it is from the point of view
> of the newcomer. That is, we'd answer the question: "why would a
> new user use this LEAF stuff". So, similar to what Eigerstein
> did, we could break it out by high level description:
<Snip!>
> That sort of thing. Or if MapleLEAF was tied to a
> specific kernel/glibc version, we could post pre-rolled
> images like "MapleLEAF for DSL", "MapleLEAF for Developers",
> etc.
Some very valid points, and I don't see any issues with that. I still
think that steering experts towards Oxygen is the way to go, but that's
for the time being. Who knows where we'll be a year from now with the
various images. (For that matter, it was about a year ago that I started
really playing with Linux, using LRP 2.9.4 as my starting point into it
all.)
> Starting with a a base router image the same on all of the
> above LEAF trees would be terribly valuable. Glad this is being
> thought out...
Agreed. The problem then becomes, though, how close do we want to stay to
the original Linux Router Project's design?
Here's the reasoning. We all know that A) LRP is pretty damned impressive
overall, B) It's dying of Old Age. It's been made fairly clear that 2.9.8
is likely to be the last of the ORIGINAL LRP line, what with Dave C.
concentrating mostly on Butterfly development. Recently we've been
examining moving to glibc 2.1.3, or possibly 2.2.x in the near future.
Oxygen's up there on that without too many glitches if I recall correctly,
I think that Erik and possibly Ewald are both working on EigerStein
updates(little fuzzy on that, as I've mostly been reading the e-mails and
missing who wrote them =), and the concern about package version is
starting to crop up. I don't know if any of us (yet) have the skills to
take LRP apart completely, cut out any fat from odd design assumptions or
misdirected concepts - of which, according to some of the
linux-router-devel archives I've read, Dave C has found plenty to make him
wonder what he was thinking - that have kinda become the norm. I'd love to
do it, but I disabused myself of the notion rather quickly after trying to
comprehend some of the core Oxygen scripts. =)
So it comes down to this. Are we continuing to develop LRP? Or are we
trying to genesis an offshoot? For some reason, I don't LIKE the idea of
going with the offshoot, but that may be the best way to go where we'd
like. There's also a strong possibility that Dave C is gonna can LRP
proper in favor of Butterfly, and we might be able to take LRP proper from
him and run with it. (Don't know if that's necessary, but it's a thought.)
Either way, there HAS to be an easy way of differentiating between the 2.1
and 2.0 packages, and I honestly don't think long-filenames is the answer.
This is turning into a total ramble, and I'm not sure where I'm leading
with it. I think what I want to do is something along the lines of an LRP
image, with most of the same structure intact, but fix a few minor things
that are broken but aren't severely problematic, do some polishing, and
possibly introduce a new extension for packages that are 2.1.x compiled. I
don't know if this should be the occasionally mentioned LEAF image or a
personal release image; but I do know that there's gotta be some stuff
that changes.
Thoughts? Should I be banned from the list until I learn not to write
e-mail at 4am? =)
--
George Metz
Commercial Routing Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We know what deterrence was with 'mutually assured destruction' during
the Cold War. But what is deterrence in information warfare?" -- Brigadier
General Douglas Richardson, USAF, Commander - Space Warfare Center
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
