* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
What is your strategia to build up a community?
Actually, I don't really have any. All I can do is offering it
as OSS and do a little bit advocacy here and there - I don't
have the resources to build up real community structures all
alone. Of
Just let the project grow. It does not require anyone jumping into
it to stick with it for long time. All I'm proposing right now is
adopt the model, which makes collaboration w/ other distros easier.
It's something like an aggreement as FHS.
Hope you have the power to go that way far enough
* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hope you have the power to go that way far enough on your own until it
becomes interesting for more people.
Well, let's see where it goes. I'll continue my work and it
seems that soon a few others might jump in.
I did good progress with Gentoo on Cygwin
What is your strategia to build up a community?
Actually, I don't really have any. All I can do is offering it
as OSS and do a little bit advocacy here and there - I don't
have the resources to build up real community structures all
alone. Of course, anybody's welcomed to join in.
This is
Am 10.09.2010 01:49, schrieb Enrico Weigelt:
* Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
But I'd really like to know what produces the performance hits
on Posfix @ Linux.
It comes down to the IO scheduler. Linux is designed to be general purpose.
FreeBSD is designed to be much more
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:43 on Friday 10 September 2010, Florian
Philipp did opine thusly:
Am 10.09.2010 01:49, schrieb Enrico Weigelt:
* Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
But I'd really like to know what produces the performance hits
on Posfix @ Linux.
It comes
On 09/10/2010 09:43 AM, Florian Philipp wrote:
..why hasn't FreeBSD's
scheduler been ported to Linux? Or is the whole software stack (block
devices etc.) so completely different that it wouldn't work?
Well, I can't answer your question, but you just reminded me that Linus
himself once
* gcc covers the linker
The 'gcc' command is a wrapper for several toolchain commands,
from the actual compilers and assemblers down to linker.
Yes, it's debatable whether that's really the recommended way (tm),
but obviously it seems to be quite comfortable.
Somehow I don't really like
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:56 on Thursday 09 September 2010, Enrico
Weigelt did opine thusly:
* Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
True. But FreeBSD isn't that popular like Windows, Mac or Linux.
So you don't work at a Tier 1 ISP then?
FreeBSD rules that space. I
When you're going into the autotools hell. Also completely
obsoleted before it even came into existence. A set of well-
designed shell functions could do the job *much* better.
While porting to cygwin I can be happy when they use it. For my first
impression those libraries are more easy to
My beef with portage in my specific production setup is the amount of work it
takes my guys to keep everything up to date. We don't have 150 identical
servers in a farm (I'd love that and would switch to Gentoo immediately if it
were). I have 130 completely different configs and uses for those
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:50 on Thursday 09 September 2010, Al did
opine thusly:
My beef with portage in my specific production setup is the amount of
work it takes my guys to keep everything up to date. We don't have 150
identical servers in a farm (I'd love that and would switch
gentoo is run emerge, study output, understand all of it, consider what
flameeyes has to say about it, wonder if some screw ball fucked up glibc yet
again, discuss in upgrade meetings, then proceed with lots of other crap ad
nauseam.
That's why a was talking of CentOs as fist step.
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:20 on Thursday 09 September 2010, Al did
opine thusly:
gentoo is run emerge, study output, understand all of it, consider what
flameeyes has to say about it, wonder if some screw ball fucked up glibc
yet again, discuss in upgrade meetings, then proceed
Hello Enrico,
I did read with interest the informations about Briegel, and the
oss-qm idea. I also looked into the PDF.
I like the argumentation and the overall idea of such a repository.
Maybe it will work.
I fear there are some drawbacks. In my estimation you can compare
patches to closed
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:25:07 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
gentoo is run emerge, study output, understand all of it, consider what
flameeyes has to say about it, wonder if some screw ball fucked up
glibc yet again, discuss in upgrade meetings, then proceed with lots of
other crap ad nauseam.
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:12 on Thursday 09 September 2010, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:
It's 130 different configs on 150 machines serving 30 different
systems, many of them legacy systems. Management once asked what it
will take to unlegacy all of that. They didn't like my
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:26:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I don't want it.
I know.
I like Gentoo in -dev
I will not allow Gentoo anywhere near -prod
This is a very considered decision, as a result of already having to
fix (many times) the monumental fuck ups that happen when it is done
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com writes:
Why should I do all the work of pinning packages to known good versions when
the RHEL devs have already done all the heavy lifting for me?
The problem with that is when you are starting a new project now, but
the packages were pinned down quite a
* Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
But I'd really like to know what produces the performance hits
on Posfix @ Linux.
It comes down to the IO scheduler. Linux is designed to be general purpose.
FreeBSD is designed to be much more specific.
hmm, Linux provides several io
* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
Even if they are pro forma open source they are mainly usefull
for the very distribution.
No, many patches are quite generic or could be easily fixed
to be that. OSS-QM makes sharing and automatic notification
on new patches easier.
In this sense they
* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
While porting to cygwin I can be happy when they use it. For my first
impression those libraries are more easy to port. They produce
libraries with a *.dll.a suffix like the native libraries of Cygwin.
Just a few years ago, autotools (especially w/
* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
Somehow I don't really like the way it is done. The levels of
abstraction are mixed and it results in very cryptic parameters.
Yes. Historically grown.
I've did a little proof-of-concept for developing an generic
abstraction of toolchain operations in the
In fact, portage is complete overkill and I refuse to allow it to be deployed
at work. Check my posting history for the rationale behind this.
It is another 2 wrappers to facilitate matters, where there is already
is a huge stack of wrappers:
* gcc covers the linker
* libtool covers gcc and
How does a program in Gentoo know, where to look for shared libraries?
Try running ldconfig -p, which relates to Nikos's comment about
ld.so.conf.
As you both indicated me in into that direction I played with libtool.
During usage it gives a comprehensive answer to our question:
quote
* Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
True. But FreeBSD isn't that popular like Windows, Mac or Linux.
So you don't work at a Tier 1 ISP then?
FreeBSD rules that space. I get hugely better performance out of Postfix on
FreeBSD than on Linux - all other ISPs in this country
* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
* gcc covers the linker
The 'gcc' command is a wrapper for several toolchain commands,
from the actual compilers and assemblers down to linker.
Yes, it's debatable whether that's really the recommended way (tm),
but obviously it seems to be quite
* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think there is a future for second level managers that can be
installed into multiple OS and yet set up the very same POSIX
invironement. Having that you can build complex software that is
portable.
IMHO the most work intensive stuff (on per-package
* Al oss.el...@googlemail.com wrote:
But I was woundering if the /etc/ld.so.conf was only historical stuff.
O.K. is not it's up-to-date. Good to know this.
Note that this only applies to certain platforms (mostly GNU/glibc
based ones). There might be completely different approaches.
It all
When you say Gentoo, do you mean Portage? Remember Windows has a lot of
limitations that WILL get in your way so dont be surprised when things
break.
I am specially interested in Gentoo because it is not another linux
distribution, but an administration tool to build your own sources and
it's
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Al wrote:
When you say Gentoo, do you mean Portage? Remember Windows has a lot of
limitations that WILL get in your way so dont be surprised when things
break.
I am specially interested in Gentoo because it is not another linux
distribution, but an administration tool to
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:13 on Tuesday 07 September 2010, Ajai
Khattri did opine thusly:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Al wrote:
When you say Gentoo, do you mean Portage? Remember Windows has a lot of
limitations that WILL get in your way so dont be surprised when things
break.
I am
So it really does come down to portage after all. Portage has a hard
dependency on bash. portage is intimately wrapped up in the linux way of doing
things.
Right, we have to say Bash. To be exact Bash is GNU not Linux. I
genarally say Linux not Gnu-Linux. However in this case the difference
2010/9/7 Ajai Khattri a...@bway.net:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Al wrote:
When you say Gentoo, do you mean Portage? Remember Windows has a lot of
limitations that WILL get in your way so dont be surprised when things
break.
I am specially interested in Gentoo because it is not another linux
Apparently, though unproven, at 20:15 on Tuesday 07 September 2010, Al did
opine thusly:
So it really does come down to portage after all. Portage has a hard
dependency on bash. portage is intimately wrapped up in the linux way of
doing things.
Right, we have to say Bash. To be exact
So it really does come down to portage after all. Portage has a hard
dependency on bash. portage is intimately wrapped up in the linux way of
doing things.
Right, we have to say Bash. To be exact Bash is GNU not Linux. I
genarally say Linux not Gnu-Linux. However in this case the
On 09/06/2010 09:28 PM, Al wrote:
Hello,
I looked into many ebuilds, but didn't come to a final conclusion yet.
I am rather confused.
How does a program in Gentoo know, where to look for shared libraries?
The program doesn't know. But the runtime linker does. And those paths
are in
How does a program in Gentoo know, where to look for shared libraries?
The program doesn't know. But the runtime linker does. And those paths are
in /etc/ld.so.conf. This file gets updated automatically by portage when
needed.
But... sometimes the program also knows and can link against
Also I installed a few libries with Prefix Gentoo on Cygwin. On Cygwin
there is no /etc/ld.so.conf. Yet the libraries are found somehow. I
still have to find out how it works in that environment.
Ah! Your manpage answers this question: The directories /lib and
/usr/lib are searched as last
On 09/06/2010 11:28 AM, Al wrote:
Hello,
I looked into many ebuilds, but didn't come to a final conclusion yet.
I am rather confused.
Welcome ;)
How does a program in Gentoo know, where to look for shared libraries?
Try running ldconfig -p, which relates to Nikos's comment about
On 09/07/2010 12:24 AM, Al wrote:
How does a program in Gentoo know, where to look for shared libraries?
The program doesn't know. But the runtime linker does. And those paths are
in /etc/ld.so.conf. This file gets updated automatically by portage when
needed.
But... sometimes the program
Are you coming from a BSD background? I know NetBSD uses rpath everywhere,
and
they don't use the ld.so.conf mechanism at all, but I can't recall if the
others
do or don't.
No, I am comming from a Debian/Ubuntu background where it simply
worked. Now I try to port Gentoo to Cygwin and it
Now I was woundering, which way would Gentoo choose or if that is not
package specific at all. Are you sure dlopen() is used as a general
approach on Gentoo?
Gentoo doesn't choose anything; it's up to the programs to decide how they
want to load libraries at runtime. It's like asking
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Al wrote:
No, I am comming from a Debian/Ubuntu background where it simply
worked.
Same mechanism there too - Debian/Ubuntu also use /etc/ld.so.conf and/or
/etc/ld.so.conf.d. You dont see it because you only deal with binary
packages when updating in Debian/Ubuntu.
44 matches
Mail list logo
