On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:47 +0300, Rowan Thorpe wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 16:03, Mike Pechkin wrote:
> > I have PIL on every OS it supports, except IRIX.
> > I can update or patch or compile PIL very fast without walls.
> I agree for personal use, and it is what I presently do on my
> webhost and personal VMs, but for use at large scale it means
> duplication of effort, risk of inconsistencies from doing manual
Answer: don't build with manual steps, use scripts (and test them, of
course). At large scale, orchestration systems do the same thing.
For instance, they sometimes have to install software that is not
pre-built in a canonical package repository.
> barrier to entry for new users,
But picolisp is for experienced programmers, a class of people who
have no problem building software.
> less exposure for Picolisp to potential users, etc.
Maybe this is true, but also recall the point about experienced
programmers (who will be the potential users).
> Also, due to the need for auditability and extreme scale with no
> maintenance-overhead my webhost would never agree to manually
> compile/install Picolisp to their public systems from upstream
> source (and definitely not repeatedly for each new release).
But didn't you mention earlier that they allowed you to build picolisp
("it is what I presently do on my webhost")? If so, that's an option.
And you can script your installs and builds for the large(r) scale.
> They would only consider installing a stable package from the "Ports
> tree", hence why I am looking for that.
If they wouldn't let you build picolisp and other software for your
site, you might consider another web hosting service. Seriously.
For all the conveniences and other upsides of ports/packages, they
still have to have maintainers who commit to stay on top of updating
the port. Sometimes that's a lot to ask of someone (who is of course
doing it on a volunteer basis). I've never been a port maintainer
myself, but being on the other side, when ports *don't* get updated,
I've had to nag the maintainer (and nobody likes that) and when that
doesn't get the port updated (not an uncommon case btw), I have to do
the build myself anyway. :(
Of course, this is all just my 2 cents.
Best to you, --Rick
0. For instance, I myself, on all my platforms -- be they desktop,
laptop, server, it doesn't matter -- use scripts (actually one script
in this case) to install even something as "small" as picolisp:
https://github.com/cryptorick/pilot. Even though the standard
picolisp build is freakin' dead easy, I have other configuration
tweaks that I require to be accomplished pre- and post-build/install,
and I have assurance that "my bases are covered" if I use a script.
So, I'm not telling you to do something that I don't do myself. ;)
1. This is one of the general themes of the Reference,
2. NFSN is (a FreeBSD-based) one that allows the user to build/install
their own software; there are probably others.