Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not very suckless at all. No other complaints though. Running arch without systemd is not too much of a PITA. As an example, I personally use my own meta-distro[0] based on Arch, and so far it's pretty nice to use and mantain. [0]: https://fleshless.org/pages/spark.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:30:04 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: Well, I disagree on that point with Kernighan Pike (The Unix Programming Environment, pg. 241). Why do you disagree? And before you go open a new thread, don't do it! A response is sufficient. I consider this book the UNIX bible and recommend it to anyone interested in starting with a un*x-os. Also, if you have no points on your matter, don't fear to accept that a certain solution can be very handy and way more flexible than writing a shell-script instead, especially when it just tries to emulate a makefile's functionality (like in your case). Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:04:09PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:30:04 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: Well, I disagree on that point with Kernighan Pike (The Unix Programming Environment, pg. 241). Why do you disagree? And before you go open a new thread, don't do it! A response is sufficient. I consider this book the UNIX bible and recommend it to anyone interested in starting with a un*x-os. Also, if you have no points on your matter, don't fear to accept that a certain solution can be very handy and way more flexible than writing a shell-script instead, especially when it just tries to emulate a makefile's functionality (like in your case). I stated my reasons earlier. Writting books does not make you immune to make technical choices that could be disagreed by members of the community. (don't let me start on Stroustrup...) That's would be too easy... I was asked to kill all my threads, including all this one. I'll do it. If you want to know who and why, just ask me off-list. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source files to recompile for a build increment. Not a fan of the licence, will still use my udev fork, but nice seeing alternatives. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source files to recompile for a build increment. Are you serious? Not a fan of the licence, will still use my udev fork, but nice seeing alternatives. Anything is better than the bloody (L)GPL you are using. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: Nobody cares how you build the kernel. Ok, you are from those who does not care. Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care about stali once I hit linux kernel issues. From now, I may have a look at stali only from a userland perspective, I thank you for the hint. Fine. Now, I exit the context of stali. I'm looking for feedback on live huge linux kernel, which are able to mount a rather standard root filesystem by itself with the kernel parameter like rootfs=UUID=38873-47398743 (the proper init process being selected with init=... kernel parameter). Probably not a 0-module linux but a linux with all disk drivers and the root filesystem modules, for instance: - ext4 related modules. - all usb controller drivers with USB mass-storage driver. - all disk controller drivers. This linux should be pretty live, what do you all reckon? -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Say what?
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:13:15PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source files to recompile for a build increment. Are you serious? 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for small project SDKs, period. I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Not a fan of the licence, will still use my udev fork, but nice seeing alternatives. Anything is better than the bloody (L)GPL you are using. :) We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. Nothing new here... -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like make use mk. FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also build util.a.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:38:27PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: Nobody cares how you build the kernel. Ok, you are from those who does not care. Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care about stali once I hit linux kernel issues. From now, I may have a look at stali only from a userland perspective, I thank you for the hint. You don't care about sta.li either way. If you did you'd help out. I only highlighted the blocking issues in regards to sta.li which I know from experience by working on morpheus. Building the kernel is a non-issue from a build system point of view.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for small project SDKs, period. The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more or less complex software-projects. Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a makefile to accomodate to common practice. I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really stupid and a waste of time to do it. If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones? We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. Nothing new here... I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Nothing to see here.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Nothing to see here. ?
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like make use mk. You missed the point. read my answer to FRIGN. FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also build util.a. Few source files does not mean *one* source file. Do you understand that?
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like make use mk. You missed the point. read my answer to FRIGN. I ignored the point. FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also build util.a. Few source files does not mean *one* source file. Do you understand that? Regardless of the number of source files you arguments are wrong.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for small project SDKs, period. The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more or less complex software-projects. Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a makefile to accomodate to common practice. I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really stupid and a waste of time to do it. If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones? I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them irrationnal so be it. My SDKs will be irrationnal then :) This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. Nothing new here... I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee. Licence choice is not a fanatic choice. I do prefer and favor GNU GPL protected software. I have reasons. I already explained them, and you probably read them as well. And for your information, I'm not bothered to work on some components which are not protected by a GNU GPL license, on a case by case basis evolving over time. You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who forgot to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected code to their users. Are you one of those? -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them irrationnal so be it. My SDKs will be irrationnal then :) This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. Reading your makefiles I understand why you hate the concept. You can write one in less than 20 LOC. You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who forgot to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected code to their users. You must be fun at parties[0]. Cheers FRIGN [0]: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Learn how to write portable makefiles. If you don't like make use mk. You missed the point. read my answer to FRIGN. I ignored the point. Indeed. FWIW smdev does not consist of a single source file. We also build util.a. Few source files does not mean *one* source file. Do you understand that? Regardless of the number of source files you arguments are wrong. My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components in small SDKs. Please could you state with more that you arguments are wrong, why they are wrong. I'm opened minded, I'm willing to read them. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On June 25, 2014 4:34:59 PM CEST, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for small project SDKs, period. The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more or less complex software-projects. Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a makefile to accomodate to common practice. I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really stupid and a waste of time to do it. If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module). I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones? I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them irrationnal so be it. My SDKs will be irrationnal then :) This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around. Nothing new here... I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee. Licence choice is not a fanatic choice. I do prefer and favor GNU GPL protected software. I have reasons. I already explained them, and you probably read them as well. And for your information, I'm not bothered to work on some components which are not protected by a GNU GPL license, on a case by case basis evolving over time. You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who forgot to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected code to their users. Are you one of those? Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. https://github.com/sylware/charfbuzz/blob/master/make Yes this is suckless.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
I love the comment at the top[0] [0] https://github.com/sylware/mudev/blob/master/makefile
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for small project SDKs, period. The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more or less complex software-projects. This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size. I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned! Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a makefile to accomodate to common practice. Install windows and visual studio then. Subscribe to msdn. That argument is invalid. Don't accept common practice blindly like a fanatic :). I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really stupid and a waste of time to do it. Then, you'll think I'm stupid, and I'll think you are stupid. Welcome in the human world. If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades. You are making me say things I didn't. I'm not ranting about make. I'm talking about what I think is make misuse. Make is perfectly justified where a full build time is too long. Oh! writing portable makefile did pop up. Could you explain me why it relates to this topic? -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:08PM +0200, koneu wrote: Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read. I thank you too for your large contribution to the topic. Come on! If you disagree, give me arguments! -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components in small SDKs. To look at things another way: simple projects don’t require particularly complicated Makefiles. You can write one simple enough that running the second line is equivalent to running make. If it needs to be extended in the future, that’s easy enough; it’s portable; everyone can read it; everyone knows how to override its configuration.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from suckless distro On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Nothing to see here.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size. I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned! Says the guy who puts #This is a brutal makefile... but extremely easy to read as it is actually #very basic makefile logic. on top of a 450 LOC makefile[0]. Dr. Frankenstein would be impressed! Install windows and visual studio then. Subscribe to msdn. That argument is invalid. Don't accept common practice blindly like a fanatic :). I'm talking about common practice in the scope of suckless software development, not in the sense of software development in general. If you really believed in GNU/Freedom(R), you would never even talk about Microsoft. You've been unmasked! Then, you'll think I'm stupid, and I'll think you are stupid. Welcome in the human world. With the difference that I'm not the only one here who thinks your makefile-concept is stupid. Oh! writing portable makefile did pop up. Could you explain me why it relates to this topic? Yes, because your points aren't. Cheers FRIGN [0]: https://github.com/sylware/mudev/blob/master/makefile -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:43:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. https://github.com/sylware/charfbuzz/blob/master/make Yes this is suckless. Thank you. It took you more messages that I think before you got interested in my work and attack it, I expect those whose disagree with me to do the same than you. So, if you understand just a tiny bit of what I said: Yes it is suckless: because the SDK does not depend on makefiles, it makes the SDK less technically costly on the overall. BTW: could you show me some of you work? I wonder who I'm arguing with. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:08:52AM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote: FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from suckless distro Sorry, I took some of my free time to feed the trolls... I'll stop very soon. All my apologies. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Carlos Torres vlaadbr...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from suckless distro On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my needs. Nothing to see here. Thread subjects are overrated. As is bottom posting. cheers! mar77i
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them irrationnal so be it. My SDKs will be irrationnal then :) This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -- I'll go makefile to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. Reading your makefiles I understand why you hate the concept. You can write one in less than 20 LOC. Great! Finally! Thanks! The metric of LOC alone is not sufficient in many cases to define a suckless project. Of course this metric must not be overshadowed, but in no way is sufficient. Let me give a extreme/simplistic example to lead you to why: Coder A wrote a program using *insert your GIGABLOAT written in C here* which does function Z in 10 LOC. Coder B wrote a program using C which does function Z in 100 LOC. The suckless program is from coder B because the whole software stack of code is way more technically costly. What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs included!). In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw their line in the same place. The important thing is not to overshadow the global technical cost. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote: Thread subjects are overrated. As is bottom posting. touché sir, touché!
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed 25 Jun 2014 at 08:39:11 PDT Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs included!). It's an old argument: cost to develop versus cost to deploy or run. The trend in mainstream software development has been to make things easier for the developer and let the users buy more RAM, disk space, or a faster CPU if they need to. One reason I've been keeping an eye on suckless.org is that it's one of the few places remaining where the other side of the argument is taken. My days as a coder are receding into the distant past, so perhaps I should stay out of this. But let me just observe that suckless projects are already heading in Sylvain's direction when they use config.mk files instead of configure scripts.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:16:34PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200 Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size. I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned! Says the guy who puts #This is a brutal makefile... but extremely easy to read as it is actually #very basic makefile logic. on top of a 450 LOC makefile[0]. Dr. Frankenstein would be impressed! Oh! Why are you talking about the size of one of my makefile? Could you not understand that the topic is the use of make in SDKs not how to actually write a makefile? You disappoint me to think that the people here won't make the difference (I bet most detected your trick). Anyway, let's change of topic, since you want to do it. Let's be in the context of writting a makefile, namely in the context of SDK where full build time is annoying in the coding cycle, then we need makefiles to cherry pick what is to be re-built. (I don't believe it... I'm feeding that obvious troll/bot :) ) so... This is another point: it is way more suckless to write more but simpler code than writing less but very complex code. It is valid for makefiles too! (the obvious example is C/c++). In the context of a makefile, I prefer writing totally stupid makefiles, very easy to read, namely verbose, than one that will for sure make me pull the make documentation to understand what I did 6 months before :) Then if you look that makefile, it's a totally stupid one, ultra easy to read. No crazy targets/rules (damned! what is $ already! :) ) This is by design, you, LOC fanatic ;) Install windows and visual studio then. Subscribe to msdn. That argument is invalid. Don't accept common practice blindly like a fanatic :). I'm talking about common practice in the scope of suckless software development, not in the sense of software development in general. If you really believed in GNU/Freedom(R), you would never even talk about Microsoft. You've been unmasked! For your information, I genuily hate microsoft/oracle/apple/sap... from all my heart. I despize them. For me, they don't register higher than cokroaches. They generate sooo much hate! That said, that part was dealing with common practice... you dismissed that topic completely... pfff! unfair! You slave of some common practice! ;) Then, you'll think I'm stupid, and I'll think you are stupid. Welcome in the human world. With the difference that I'm not the only one here who thinks your makefile-concept is stupid. This is not stupid. It's just putting reasonably the line somewhere else to be friendler to the suckless philosophy. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:07:17AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components in small SDKs. To look at things another way: simple projects don’t require particularly complicated Makefiles. You can write one simple enough that running the second line is equivalent to running make. If it needs to be extended in the future, that’s easy enough; it’s portable; everyone can read it; everyone knows how to override its configuration. Indeed, but those simple projects would not require complicated shell scripts too. Then better use a shell script instead a makefile. Why? Well for all the reasons I stated in off-topic part of this thread ;) -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:38:01 -0500 M Farkas-Dyck strake...@gmail.com wrote: You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common interface to launching and connecting programs, machine code generation for various architectures, and the machine itself. Losses arise when components cause more grief than they're worth. Make itself is easy to build and use. GNU autoshit ain't; its mental costs due to nonuniform interfaces and other faults are too great. The term mental costs is a very creative way to describe the issue. Thanks for expressing it, I couldn't have put it better! Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote: Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump technical costs by far. A reusable component with well-specified interfaces makes my life much easier, for I need not reimplementate that functionality each time I need it, and it works uniformly across all usage sites, which means less to remember. Even if it takes more computer time, to a point I care not, for computer time is cheap and my time is costly. Make is such a component. I needn't care how many files I need to build; I just write a makefile and it does so. You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common interface to launching and connecting programs, machine code generation for various architectures, and the machine itself. Losses arise when components cause more grief than they're worth. Make itself is easy to build and use. GNU autoshit ain't; its mental costs due to nonuniform interfaces and other faults are too great. Thanks for this.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote: On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs included!). In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw their line in the same place. The important thing is not to overshadow the global technical cost. Now, I can't honestly claim to write for all the suckless community. But I shall write for myself at least. Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump technical costs by far. A reusable component with well-specified interfaces makes my life much easier, for I need not reimplementate that functionality each time I need it, and it works uniformly across all usage sites, which means less to remember. Even if it takes more computer time, to a point I care not, for computer time is cheap and my time is costly. Make is such a component. I needn't care how many files I need to build; I just write a makefile and it does so. You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common interface to launching and connecting programs, machine code generation for various architectures, and the machine itself. Losses arise when components cause more grief than they're worth. Make itself is easy to build and use. GNU autoshit ain't; its mental costs due to nonuniform interfaces and other faults are too great. Hi, You write like I was not recommending the use of makefile in any context. You may have misunderstood me. It's expected when you look at the mess which is that part of this thread, then my guess is your are not ill intended. Actually, the context was specific. The context was small SDKs. Those you usually find in suckless-ish projects. Of course, I would use makefiles for SDKs where a full build is annoyingly too long for the coding cycle. Frign even brought the attention of the readers to one of my makefile trying to throw discredit on what I said using my makefile coding style (that very coding style I explained in the follow-up message). :) But for the GNU autosh*t... we all agree... this is one of the worst and kludgiest SDK systems out there... a definitive nono. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
i think Slackware is a fairly simple distro. like sin mentioned you can have a fairly small install with tag files. It also hasn't changed much in 10 years. they just have new packages :) there are some live distros like slax that are based on slackware :) or corelinux are good. i think the effort for morpheus or sta.li are both necessary since most distros have strayed away from simplicity. --Carlos
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: giberish... Sylvain why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source files to recompile for a build increment. Huh. Make strikes me as one of the more suckless tools out there. It does exactly what it says it does, and nothing else. It doesn't reach inside the tools you tell it to use (except for the fact that it more or less intrinsically knows the workflow 99% of C compilation projects use, but you can also make it forget that easily). It doesn't complain if you use it for something outside of its intended scope -- I'm a sysadmin, not a real programmer, and I've used make in just about every aspect of sysadmining, one way or another. It even works as a fairly usable rc / daemon control system (it could be init itself, for that matter). But it does none of those things by bloating; it does them by staying out of the way as much as possible. It does one thing well (running commands based on a supplied command definition and dependency file), liberally reads a plaintext human-readable file as input, places no artificial limitations on its usability, and acts deterministically and predictably*. That's what sucking less is, really. Now, a downside of being a good tool is that it gets misused a lot. You could say the same thing of a good power drill. Make is the medium into which GNU's autohell gets translated, but that's mostly because it's one of the few systems both simple and powerful enough to survive that monstrosity and still mostly function. But, back to your point, I don't know that a custom shellscript is more lightweight in any important sense than a makefile. Make is on basically any system with a compiler -- if you're using simple, portable makefiles (and you should), then it's actually a more stable API to work with than trying to work around all the various shells and their versions that might be out there. Using a shellscript opens you up to oh, that doesn't work in bash 4.1 and wait, what if somebody has /bin/sh linked to csh? (to say nothing of where do the semicolons go in a bash for loop, again?). To me, make should be used when you need a specific set of commands run in a dependency relationship, particularly one involving file mtimes. Many, many builds work that way, even simple ones. If you'd prefer, look at make as a rather clever sed/awk script that transforms a yaml file into a series of sh commands. * Having behavior tied to mtimes of files in the environment makes it somewhat less than deterministic, in fairness. Weldon
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:21:05PM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND sylw...@legeek.net wrote: giberish... Sylvain why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts Something is not fishy there, I have never sent this message wtf? Yes, I'll start another thread (even if there is no more to say). -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:52:07PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote: On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source files to recompile for a build increment. Huh. Make strikes me as one of the more suckless tools out there. It does exactly what it says it does, and nothing else. It doesn't reach inside the tools you tell it to use (except for the fact that it more or less intrinsically knows the workflow 99% of C compilation projects use, but you can also make it forget that easily). It doesn't complain if you use it for something outside of its intended scope -- I'm a sysadmin, not a real programmer, and I've used make in just about every aspect of sysadmining, one way or another. It even works as a fairly usable rc / daemon control system (it could be init itself, for that matter). But it does none of those things by bloating; it does them by staying out of the way as much as possible. It does one thing well (running commands based on a supplied command definition and dependency file), liberally reads a plaintext human-readable file as input, places no artificial limitations on its usability, and acts deterministically and predictably*. That's what sucking less is, really. Now, a downside of being a good tool is that it gets misused a lot. You could say the same thing of a good power drill. Make is the medium into which GNU's autohell gets translated, but that's mostly because it's one of the few systems both simple and powerful enough to survive that monstrosity and still mostly function. But, back to your point, I don't know that a custom shellscript is more lightweight in any important sense than a makefile. Make is on basically any system with a compiler -- if you're using simple, portable makefiles (and you should), then it's actually a more stable API to work with than trying to work around all the various shells and their versions that might be out there. Using a shellscript opens you up to oh, that doesn't work in bash 4.1 and wait, what if somebody has /bin/sh linked to csh? (to say nothing of where do the semicolons go in a bash for loop, again?). To me, make should be used when you need a specific set of commands run in a dependency relationship, particularly one involving file mtimes. Many, many builds work that way, even simple ones. If you'd prefer, look at make as a rather clever sed/awk script that transforms a yaml file into a series of sh commands. * Having behavior tied to mtimes of files in the environment makes it somewhat less than deterministic, in fairness. Weldon Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to create for this topic. Thank you. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to create for this topic. STOP. PLEASE. get decent mail software that can handle subthreads and it's not an issue.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/26/2014 12:08 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to create for this topic. No, I have neither a dog in this fight (use whatever works for you, seriously) nor a desire to alienate a list which 1) I only joined a few days ago, 2) Is clearly not enjoying this conversation, and 3) Already put up with my having sent emails from a day in the future recently without being jerks about it. Cheers, Weldon
Re: [dev] suckless distro
please run attached cleaner.exe to reorder the threads according to the human rights.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
Sylvain BERTRAND writes: Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source files to recompile for a build increment. For an opinion that matters, try Kernighan Pike (The Unix Programming Environment, pg. 241): It's a nuisance to have to type two commands to compile a new version of [our example]. Although it's certainly easy to make a shell file that does the job, there's a better way, one that will generalize nicely later on when there is more than one source file in the program. ... make is most useful when the program being created is large enough to be spread over several source files, but it's handy even for something as small as [our example]. In other words, one advantage that make provides is a simple interface for building any program, whether small or large. Said interface should not come at the cost of complexity, but good makefiles are simple anyway (the one in their example is two lines). -- Anthony J. Bentley
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:12:10PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: Sylvain BERTRAND writes: Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script. Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source files to recompile for a build increment. For an opinion that matters, try Kernighan Pike (The Unix Programming Environment, pg. 241): It's a nuisance to have to type two commands to compile a new version of [our example]. Although it's certainly easy to make a shell file that does the job, there's a better way, one that will generalize nicely later on when there is more than one source file in the program. ... make is most useful when the program being created is large enough to be spread over several source files, but it's handy even for something as small as [our example]. In other words, one advantage that make provides is a simple interface for building any program, whether small or large. Said interface should not come at the cost of complexity, but good makefiles are simple anyway (the one in their example is two lines). Well, I disagree on that point with Kernighan Pike (The Unix Programming Environment, pg. 241). And come on... :) regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: BTW, regarding a static linux kernel for desktops: - was including as built-ins *all* desktop hardware driver modules available in the standard source tree kind of benchmarked like user space? That for a live stali gnu/linux based system. Heyho, I've built me a hardware tailored kernel, containing only the drivers, my laptop needs and mostly statically linked. Only a few drivers (UMTS modem, wifi, audio) are built as modules for convenience reasons, so I don't have to reboot if one of them fails, but can just reload the module. For a live distribution that would obviously not work. --Markus
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/24/2014 11:58 AM, Markus Teich wrote: I've built me a hardware tailored kernel, containing only the drivers, my laptop needs and mostly statically linked. Only a few drivers (UMTS modem, wifi, audio) are built as modules for convenience reasons, so I don't have to reboot if one of them fails, but can just reload the module. Also, some of the drivers really want to be modules. Not so much the literal hardware drivers as the driver drivers like snd, drm, *-agp, various wireless frameworks, etc. You can do them as built-ins, but it's rarely worth the headache (and requires a rebuild/re-bootloader-configure/reboot when you inevitably screw something up). Though some of that headache is mitigated by using a slightly more sane hotplug than udev (which would be just about anything). Personally I tend to use module-less kernels, but then I also still like static /dev file trees, so I'm kind of a dinosaur about this. But my side hobby of making a distro has made me more sympathetic to the ideas behind modules -- once it works on my machines is no longer enough, modules start to be more useful. That said, even for a live system as long as you don't mind loading an immense kernel (Slackware's huge is 6.4M, for instance; twice the size of generic, and huge still has some modules) I don't think there's ever a situation where you would _need_ a modular kernel. The run-anywhere kernel I've been working on has basically every possible hardware selection built-in, and modules for behavior or features. A modular kernel in principle seems to suck less than a big static one, but in practice it ties you down to whatever daemon out there in userland is telling the kernel what to do with hardware (mdev, fortunately, sucks less than udev, but I'd still rather just have the kernel deal with stuff; if we could get rid of people's obsession with hotplugging hardware we wouldn't even need that...) --Weldon
Re: [dev] suckless distro
again the recommendation of using make localmodconfig
Re: [dev] suckless distro
Andrew Gwozdziewycz said: Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. The most suckless aspect of Arch is nearly undisposable systemd, I believe. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox gray...@outerhaven.de wrote: Hey, i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept to compile just the things I really want and need. Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. Arch is not lightweight. You can use the Arch documentation/wiki with any distro if you know how to remap concepts. I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not very suckless at all. No other complaints though. Systemd is not the only issue.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:49:58PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote: On 06/24/2014 11:58 AM, Markus Teich wrote: I've built me a hardware tailored kernel, containing only the drivers, my laptop needs and mostly statically linked. Only a few drivers (UMTS modem, wifi, audio) are built as modules for convenience reasons, so I don't have to reboot if one of them fails, but can just reload the module. That said, even for a live system as long as you don't mind loading an immense kernel (Slackware's huge is 6.4M, for instance; twice the size of generic, and huge still has some modules) I don't think there's ever a situation where you would _need_ a modular kernel. The run-anywhere kernel I've been working on has basically every possible hardware selection built-in, and modules for behavior or features. A modular kernel in principle seems to suck less than a big static one, but in practice it ties you down to whatever daemon out there in userland is telling the kernel what to do with hardware (mdev, fortunately, sucks less than udev, but I'd still rather just have the kernel deal with stuff; if we could get rid of people's obsession with hotplugging hardware we wouldn't even need that...) There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 06:46:33PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: [0]: http://sta.li/faq [1]: http://dl.suckless.org/stali/clt2010/stali.html [2]: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/ldd-arbitrary-code-execution/ BTW, regarding a static linux kernel for desktops: - was including as built-ins *all* desktop hardware driver modules available in the standard source tree kind of benchmarked like user space? That for a live stali gnu/linux based system. In regards to sta.li and similar projects the kernel is really not the issue here. Getting a self-hosted userspace up and running using the suckless base tools is the most difficult part. This is mostly because our suckless base tools will probably never work (by design) with most configure scripts. Several solutions have been proposed. One is to rewrite the build systems of the affected software to use make or mk. The other solution is to build inside an /emul namespace. Nobody cares how you build the kernel.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/24/2014 04:20 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: Systemd is not the only issue. Specifically, maintaining a stable platform is something of an impossibility. Upstream fixes are too-rarely backported (and what the else would I use a distro for?), and so when Heartbleed_2.0 or whatever comes out, rather than just having it fixed with a security update in my existing stack, I end up having to install the upstream version bump that fixes it, which pulls in libfoo3.0, foo-gobject-introspection, and of course systemd. There was one point a few years ago (back when I used Arch) where one morning I ran pacman -Syu (or whatever it is) and _it removed HAL_. (No possible chance I could still need _that_, right?) Arch has what I call a Heraclitus problem (from his aphorism you can't step in the same river twice). It moves too fast and explicitly doesn't have a goal of being a stable platform. When you're an admin, bleeding edge just leaves you bloody. It's like running Sid -- and I knew Ubuntu was going to be a disaster when I read Shuttleworth talking about the joys of Sid... oy vey... Ruby has that too. I'm not much of a programmer, but I'm an admin who manages the platforms programmers use. I want to know that a system I install today will be useable in 2 or 3 years. Back when I was in a Ruby shop, that got me laughed out of meetings, because rails or rind or radish or whatever the devs were using released incompatible major version bumps _every 6 months_ in some cases. (Yes, I know, always roll and freeze your own development stack, but still...) Frankly the least suckfull distro I am familiar with is the venerable Slackware, which is still full of suck, but full of vanilla suck that I'm familiar with and is predictable across upgrades. YMMV, of course.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 2014-06-24 12:39 +0200, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: The most suckless aspect of Arch is nearly undisposable systemd, I believe. Assuming you've meant suckful. :) Excuse my ignorance but can you elaborate on the undisposability of systemd? I'm running Arch on two machines (armv6 and x86_64) and found no problems writing a basic init[1] and a shell script[2] which brings up all the necessary stuff I need (without the fancy stuff like restarting the services and so on) and then using that instead of systemd. All I needed just change the bootline in the bootloader configs. The only thing systemd I depend on is systemd-udevd and only because I did not care to look for alternatives. Or is it possible I use my machines too minimalistically and that's why I don't see what's missing? [1] https://github.com/ypsu/desktop-configuration/blob/my-rpi/system/init.c [2] https://github.com/ypsu/desktop-configuration/blob/my-rpi/system/boot.sh -- Balazs
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/24/2014 04:22 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: There's also smdev[0] if you are interested. Neat, thanks. I'll definitely try it out.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:42:19PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote: On 06/24/2014 04:20 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: Systemd is not the only issue. Frankly the least suckfull distro I am familiar with is the venerable Slackware, which is still full of suck, but full of vanilla suck that I'm familiar with and is predictable across upgrades. YMMV, of course. +1
Re: [dev] suckless distro
Weldon Goree wrote: Neat, thanks. I'll definitely try it out. Heyho Weldon, please fix your mailservers time. --Markus
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox gray...@outerhaven.de wrote: Hey, i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept to compile just the things I really want and need. Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. Arch is not lightweight. You can use the Arch documentation/wiki with any distro if you know how to remap concepts. I guess it depends on how you define lightweight. If you define lightweight as the distro only has 6 packages, then a) I think you're being insane, b) more power to you. There's another way to define lightweight (the way I meant it), which is that it doesn't do anything special for you and allows you to build the system you want. Don't want pulseaudio? Fine, don't install it. Don't want GNOME? Don't install it. The number of *available* packages has no impact on that, but it sure is convenient when installation is a 'pacman -S' away. I fail to understand the docs/wiki comment. The docs/wiki are supplementary to the manuals that come with software you can install if you choose to. To further my point: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Boot_Loaders. Arch doesn't say, you can only use GRUB. It says, here's a bunch of Boot Loaders for you to choose from, and a bit of documentation to get you started quickly. Again, choice over prescription. I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not very suckless at all. No other complaints though. Systemd is not the only issue. Please enlighten me, if you would be so kind.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:09:11AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox gray...@outerhaven.de wrote: Hey, i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept to compile just the things I really want and need. Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. Arch is not lightweight. You can use the Arch documentation/wiki with any distro if you know how to remap concepts. I guess it depends on how you define lightweight. http://morpheus.2f30.org/
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:09:11 -0400 Andrew Gwozdziewycz w...@apgwoz.com wrote: I guess it depends on how you define lightweight. If you define lightweight as the distro only has 6 packages, then a) I think you're being insane, b) more power to you. There's another way to define lightweight (the way I meant it), which is that it doesn't do anything special for you and allows you to build the system you want. You sound like Richard Stallman talking about Freedom(R). Don't want pulseaudio? Fine, don't install it. Don't want GNOME? Don't install it. The number of *available* packages has no impact on that, but it sure is convenient when installation is a 'pacman -S' away. It does have an impact when certain packages become a standard. For instance, Microsoft dropped ALSA-support in Skype in favor of pulseaudio as a part of their EEE tactic. Other examples are the incorporation of udev in systemd (thank god there's eudev and mdev), the assumption everyone uses non-tiling-wm's, PAM, consolekit and many more. The only way for me to escape this hell (especially consolekit and PAM) is Gentoo, because it's the only distro allowing you to get rid of that crap completely. Arch has excellent documentation, but is more or less a mainstream-distribution like Ubuntu and Debian acting more professional than it really is. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:19 AM, FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote: On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:09:11 -0400 Andrew Gwozdziewycz w...@apgwoz.com wrote: … Don't want pulseaudio? Fine, don't install it. Don't want GNOME? Don't install it. The number of *available* packages has no impact on that, but it sure is convenient when installation is a 'pacman -S' away. It does have an impact when certain packages become a standard. For instance, Microsoft dropped ALSA-support in Skype in favor of pulseaudio as a part of their EEE tactic. How do you usually get around Skype being Skype? Other examples are the incorporation of udev in systemd (thank god there's eudev and mdev), the assumption everyone uses non-tiling-wm's, PAM, consolekit and many more. Where does that assumption come into play in Arch? I’m using a tiling WM with no problems.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:28:42 -0700 Ryan O’Hara rni...@gmail.com wrote: How do you usually get around Skype being Skype? It was an example. People seriously using Skype now are forced to have PA installed. And many people have to use Skype because their work requires it. Where does that assumption come into play in Arch? I’m using a tiling WM with no problems. Read this[0]. There are plenty of programs not working well with tiling-wm's. It's choice not to use them, but I felt like including them in my list. Cheers FRIGN [0]: http://suckless.org/sucks -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:35 AM, FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote: On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:28:42 -0700 Ryan O’Hara rni...@gmail.com wrote: How do you usually get around Skype being Skype? It was an example. People seriously using Skype now are forced to have PA installed. And many people have to use Skype because their work requires it. Those who care that much, like in many things that are not Arch, will choose not to upgrade it. Where does that assumption come into play in Arch? I’m using a tiling WM with no problems. Read this[0]. There are plenty of programs not working well with tiling-wm's. It's choice not to use them, but I felt like including them in my list. This doesn’t appear to have anything at all to do with distro choice. (And hey, Arch doesn’t have packages for beep-media-player, gqview, or aterm!)
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:28:42AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote: How do you usually get around Skype being Skype? Have a separate /emul namespace for crapware. Use ns-tools[0] to manage it. This also helps with multilib crap. [0] http://git.r-36.net/ns-tools/ That’s what I do (since Skype is the only multilib package I use), but it seems more straightforward to do with pacman than any other default package manager…
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:28:42AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:19 AM, FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote: On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:09:11 -0400 Andrew Gwozdziewycz w...@apgwoz.com wrote: … Don't want pulseaudio? Fine, don't install it. Don't want GNOME? Don't install it. The number of *available* packages has no impact on that, but it sure is convenient when installation is a 'pacman -S' away. It does have an impact when certain packages become a standard. For instance, Microsoft dropped ALSA-support in Skype in favor of pulseaudio as a part of their EEE tactic. How do you usually get around Skype being Skype? Have a separate /emul namespace for crapware. Use ns-tools[0] to manage it. This also helps with multilib crap. [0] http://git.r-36.net/ns-tools/
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/24/2014 06:27 PM, Markus Teich wrote: please fix your mailservers time. Gah! Sorry, all. Worse yet, it was the local time on my laptop (though I thought I had set postfix to mangle supplied Date: headers), and now I have a ~24h clock skew in the middle of a large cross-compile. WMG
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox gray...@outerhaven.de wrote: Hey, i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept to compile just the things I really want and need. Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not very suckless at all. No other complaints though. -- http://apgwoz.com
Re: [dev] suckless distro
void did a move to runit, which is pretty minimal compared to any other init alternative www.voidlinux.eu On 23 Jun 2014, at 15:44, Andrew Gwozdziewycz w...@apgwoz.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, grayfox gray...@outerhaven.de wrote: Hey, i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept to compile just the things I really want and need. Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not very suckless at all. No other complaints though. -- http://apgwoz.com
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 23/06/2014, Andrew Gwozdziewycz w...@apgwoz.com wrote: Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight. I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not very suckless at all. No other complaints though. Beware: Arch now deletes all static libraries in packages. It lost its Way a while ago.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
I think removing static libraries for packages does not go against The Arch Way, but rather contributes towards technical simplicity. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way --- Alexander Rødseth / xyproto
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:17:58 +0200 Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote: I think removing static libraries for packages does not go against The Arch Way, but rather contributes towards technical simplicity. Read this[0], this[1] and this[2]. Then you'll know The Arch Way(R) leads straight to hell. Cheers FRIGN [0]: http://sta.li/faq [1]: http://dl.suckless.org/stali/clt2010/stali.html [2]: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/ldd-arbitrary-code-execution/ -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: [0]: http://sta.li/faq [1]: http://dl.suckless.org/stali/clt2010/stali.html [2]: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/ldd-arbitrary-code-execution/ BTW, regarding a static linux kernel for desktops: - was including as built-ins *all* desktop hardware driver modules available in the standard source tree kind of benchmarked like user space? That for a live stali gnu/linux based system. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] suckless distro
As far as i know there is a package management frontend called prt-get [1]. This tool should take care of dependencies. [1] http://crux.nu/Main/Handbook3-0#ntoc20 On 15 June 2014 10:16, Julian Andrej j.and...@gmx.de wrote: As far as i know there is a package management frontend called prt-get [1]. This tool should take care of dependencies. [1] http://crux.nu/Main/Handbook3-0#ntoc20 On 15 June 2014 09:24, Thuban thu...@yeuxdelibad.net wrote: * Bigby James bigby.ja...@crepcran.com le [14-06-2014 14:22:47 -0500]: On 06/14, Thuban wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would like to know what are you using? Do you know any BSD equivalent? CRUX would get my vote too, largely because it's the most BSD-like mature Linux distro I've found. Very similar to Arch but much slimmer to begin with, and the package management system is pretty cool despite its limitations. As for the BSDs, from my observation the reasons people have for preferring any one to the rest are mutually exclusive. -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams CRUX is great, but dealing with dependencies is sometimes annoying. I really like OpenBSD philosophy, let's try it. regards, -- ,--. : /` ) Thuban | `-'PubKey : http://yeuxdelibad.net/Divers/thuban.pub \_ KeyID : 0x54CD2F2F Envoyé à partir de mon serveur auto-hébergé
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 05:40:17PM +0200, Thuban wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would like to know what are you using? Another option would be Slackware. You can do a minimal base install, then generate a package-tempate for your needs and use that for any other installations. You can do this either using tagfiles or slackpkg templates. Do you know any BSD equivalent? OpenBSD. I'd advise going for OpenBSD -current if you are planning to install it on a desktop/laptop.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 05:40:17PM +0200, Thuban wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would like to know what are you using? Some of us are working on morpheus[0]. Still quite heavy in development but we are getting there. There's also sabotage linux[1] which is pretty much usable at the moment. [0] http://morpheus.2f30.org/ [1] https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:40:17 +0200, Thuban thu...@yeuxdelibad.net wrote: Do you know any BSD equivalent? Not sure about the equivalent bit, but take a look at OpenBSD, there's nothing better at the moment.
Re: [dev] suckless distro
On 06/14, Thuban wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a suckless distro. I really like crux [1], and I would like to know what are you using? Do you know any BSD equivalent? CRUX would get my vote too, largely because it's the most BSD-like mature Linux distro I've found. Very similar to Arch but much slimmer to begin with, and the package management system is pretty cool despite its limitations. As for the BSDs, from my observation the reasons people have for preferring any one to the rest are mutually exclusive. -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams
Re: [dev] suckless distro
Hey, i used Arch for some years but changed to Gentoo this week. It's not really BSD-equivalent by default but with some time you can do everything you want very easily. Moreover I like the USE-flag concept to compile just the things I really want and need. grayfox
