Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Finlay Dobbie]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 06:30  pm, Max Horn wrote:

> At 18:20 Uhr + 15.01.2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
>> On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 10:41  pm, Max Horn wrote:
>>
>>> Also, is it a good idea to use 0.3.2a (originally I thought this was 
>>> good to indicate only small things changed), or should we rather use 
>>> 0.3.3? I am still tending more to 0.3.2a, but I am certainly open on 
>>> suggestions :)
>>
>> 'a' is normally used to indicate 'alpha', as 'b' is normally used to 
>> indicate 'beta'.
>
> Uhm, that is refering to a mac/ibm tradition. With many other 
> versioning systems, "a", "b", "c" etc. are used to indicate a minor 
> revision.

True, I was merely bringing it up as something to consider. :-)

  -- Finlay


___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Max Horn]

At 18:20 Uhr + 15.01.2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
>On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 10:41  pm, Max Horn wrote:
>
>>Also, is it a good idea to use 0.3.2a (originally I thought this 
>>was good to indicate only small things changed), or should we 
>>rather use 0.3.3? I am still tending more to 0.3.2a, but I am 
>>certainly open on suggestions :)
>
>'a' is normally used to indicate 'alpha', as 'b' is normally used to 
>indicate 'beta'.

Uhm, that is refering to a mac/ibm tradition. With many other 
versioning systems, "a", "b", "c" etc. are used to indicate a minor 
revision.

Considering the fact that we have used this scheme several times in 
the past (0.9.6a and 0.2.4a come to mind), I don't see a problem 
there.


Cheers,

Max
-- 
---
Max Horn
Software Developer

email: 
phone: (+49) 6151-494890

___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Finlay Dobbie]

On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 10:41  pm, Max Horn wrote:

> Also, is it a good idea to use 0.3.2a (originally I thought this was 
> good to indicate only small things changed), or should we rather use 
> 0.3.3? I am still tending more to 0.3.2a, but I am certainly open on 
> suggestions :)

'a' is normally used to indicate 'alpha', as 'b' is normally used to 
indicate 'beta'.

  -- Finlay


___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[David R. Morrison]

I think tomorrow is fine for a release, and 0.3.2a makes sense as a number.

  -- Dave

___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Finlay Dobbie]

On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 10:47  pm, Gordon Messmer wrote:

>> Apple is claiming to work towards POSIX, but so far I haven't seen
>> much on that front. But actually, I'd prefer if they would finally
>> fixing some of the really bad errors and shortcomings in the Unix
>> part of OS X (like pthreads or mkdir()).
>
> Yeah, how the hell did those go wrong?  It's not like they didn't have
> working implimentations to adapt.

Go wrong? More a case of they were never implemented correctly. Apple's 
implementation of things like mkdir() came from NeXT which came from BSD 
circa 1989 in most cases. There is work going on to synch stuff up, but 
it's slow going. In the case of pthreads, the "working implementations' 
aren't much use, since it requires kernel-level features that are 
specific to the Darwin kernel and its architecture, etc. It's not as 
easy as it might sound. pthread_kill() requires per-thread signal 
delivery in the kernel, which requires involvement in high-risk code 
that few people are familiar with, and knowledge of how everything works 
and why it works like it does. There are few people that can do this 
type of thing, they are all at Apple, and they have lots of other things 
to work on.

  -- Finlay


___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Max Horn]

At 22:30 Uhr + 13.01.2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
>On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 10:21  pm, Max Horn wrote:
>
>>Apple is claiming to work towards POSIX, but so far I haven't seen 
>>much on that front.
>
>They have claimed that? When? In fact, I think I've heard them claim 
>quite the opposite: that they don't care about being POSIX 
>compliant, just so long as they are compliant enough for the things 
>they need to work (i.e. Carbon/Cocoa/Java).

Well, some Apple workers were claiming that they were trying to 
become more POSIX compliant if where they can do so easily, but that 
it's a fairly low priority. Given the fact that the programmers 
working on OS X are extremly reluctant to make any changes, even to 
broken things, unless they really have to (seems the internal clima 
isn't very well currentyl...), I think the chances of seeing much 
here is pretty slim. This extends to such simple changes as getting 
rid of the need to #include , which would only require 
changing a few other sys/*.h files. Oh well.


Max
-- 
---
Max Horn
Software Developer

email: 
phone: (+49) 6151-494890

___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Gordon Messmer]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Max Horn wrote:

> At 11:06 Uhr -0800 13.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
> >
> >>  Goddamn Apple for removing gnutar in OS X (even if it was only in the
> >>  Developer Tools... grrr).
> >
> >Yeah... I love how the Darwin system is entirely BSD, except where it's
> >not.
> >
> >Stupid POSIX limited tools anyway.
> 
> I am not quite sure if you are ironic or serious. Since you do not 
> add any smileys or anything, I take you serious.

No, I hate the BSD utilities.  GNU's utilities are a lot more useable, 
even though they aren't 100% POSIX (like 1k blocks instead of 512B).

> The lack of POSIX compatibility in OS X is often enough a portability 
> hindrance. And IMHO, compared to e.g. the GNU variants of many 
> standard tools, the BSD tools are crippled, lack features and only 
> have limited capabilities when it comes to exchange with system that 
> comply to POSIX, which, like it or not, is the de-facto Unix standard.

POSIX is good except where it's not.  That's usually where GNU is better.  
:)

> One of the most horrid things about BSD in my opinion is the complete 
> lack of strict file locking. No way for an app to protect its data 
> from being nuked while working on it.

Ick.  Most of my development has been on GNU systems, so I don't know much 
about BSD's locking limitations.  I do however, know a lot about the 
consequenses of not locking files.  Ever run sendmail on Slackware < 7?  
They left procmail using lockf *and* flock (and still do), which didn't 
work on Linux 2.0.  Consequently, no file locking.  :(

> Apple is claiming to work towards POSIX, but so far I haven't seen 
> much on that front. But actually, I'd prefer if they would finally 
> fixing some of the really bad errors and shortcomings in the Unix 
> part of OS X (like pthreads or mkdir()).

Yeah, how the hell did those go wrong?  It's not like they didn't have 
working implimentations to adapt.

-- 
If I had a dollar for every brain that you don't have,
I'd have one dollar. - Squidward to SpongeBob


___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Finlay Dobbie]

On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 10:21  pm, Max Horn wrote:

> Apple is claiming to work towards POSIX, but so far I haven't seen much 
> on that front.

They have claimed that? When? In fact, I think I've heard them claim 
quite the opposite: that they don't care about being POSIX compliant, 
just so long as they are compliant enough for the things they need to 
work (i.e. Carbon/Cocoa/Java).

  -- Finlay


___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.3.2a

[Max Horn]

At 11:06 Uhr -0800 13.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
>
>>  Darwin's tar is BSD tar, and BSD tar behaves differently from GNU tar
>>  when it comes to long file names. I think it can cope with them, though,
>>  if the archive is created with BSD tar in the first place. Not sure on
>>  that one, though.
>>
>>  Goddamn Apple for removing gnutar in OS X (even if it was only in the
>>  Developer Tools... grrr).
>
>Yeah... I love how the Darwin system is entirely BSD, except where it's
>not.
>
>Stupid POSIX limited tools anyway.

I am not quite sure if you are ironic or serious. Since you do not 
add any smileys or anything, I take you serious.

The lack of POSIX compatibility in OS X is often enough a portability 
hindrance. And IMHO, compared to e.g. the GNU variants of many 
standard tools, the BSD tools are crippled, lack features and only 
have limited capabilities when it comes to exchange with system that 
comply to POSIX, which, like it or not, is the de-facto Unix standard.

One of the most horrid things about BSD in my opinion is the complete 
lack of strict file locking. No way for an app to protect its data 
from being nuked while working on it.

Apple is claiming to work towards POSIX, but so far I haven't seen 
much on that front. But actually, I'd prefer if they would finally 
fixing some of the really bad errors and shortcomings in the Unix 
part of OS X (like pthreads or mkdir()).


Max
-- 
---
Max Horn
Software Developer

email: 
phone: (+49) 6151-494890

___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel