Re: FreeBSD 11

[Rowan Thorpe]

Hi Rick, thanks for the feedback.

> ..[snip]..
> Answer: don't build with manual steps, use scripts (and test them, of
> course).[0]  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.

Being a sys-admin/engineer and developer for many years I have used/do
use many orchestration and provisioning systems, and written endless,
endless scripts (for the in-house or boutique stuff not yet covered by
a "system") already. One of the key points of packaging is to
simplify, robustify and sometimes cut down on that, to regain some of
the wasted cognitive load.

> > barrier to entry for new users,
>
> But picolisp is for experienced programmers[1], 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).

"New users" (to picolisp) does not necessarily mean "inexperienced
programmers". For example, for work I often have to interact with and
create with upwards of 7 different languages - by necessity, not by
choice - and always yearned to work with a single language that fits
me personally (for similar reasons to what prompted Paul Graham's
explorations with Arc), but I discovered picolisp in 2012, about a
decade later than I would have liked to. This was after spending years
(of very limited spare-time) wrangling various other languages, and
never having the time to do more than dabble with beasts like Common
Lisp, in a quest to find one that really "clicked". For example I
submitted two core patches and two documentation patches to Newlisp
while I was still trying to bend it to my interests (all were accepted
without credit :-/ hence why I left it at only two). I found picolisp
in 2012 by happy accident, mentioned deep in a Chinese infosec forum
(via Google translate) in the most obscure side-reference within the
most obscure issue, and was annoyed that after existing for so long it
had been so far under my radar until then. Picolisp being in-tree
wherever possible raises its exposure dramatically, and every bit
helps.

> > 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.

I already compile/use/maintain it in my homedir on my personal webhost
(and have various scripts for automating that), but maintaining
different toolsets that way doesn't scale (mentally or
computationally) the way it could if things were in-tree. I am talking
about getting FreeBSD to take that load off the users so FreeBSD-based
(web/cloud)hosts can install to *their* system. On a Debian GNU/Linux
VM I can do:
 ssh "myhost" sh -c 'sudo -n apt-get -y install picolisp && picolisp
-"prinl \"Hello world!\"" -bye'
On FreeBSD I can't yet do that.

> > 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.[2] Seriously.

That's why I moved *to* my present webhost :-)

> 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).

That's why I put the feelers out about that exact issue (to get an
idea about the potential load before embarking on packaging). Having
created/maintained a package for Debian (didn't get into Official due
to mentor-disinterest with the non-standard upstream licensing),
created in-house .debs, helped maintainers with other official
packages there, as well as maintaining some in-house ebuilds for
Gentoo back in the day, I am no stranger to that burden, hence asking
around before jumping in like a n00b.

> 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. :(

So in the worst-case we fall back on what we would otherwise have to
do anyway, no net-loss.

> ..[snip]..
> 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 

Re: FreeBSD 11

[Jakob Eriksson]

On 14/10/16 23:03, r...@tamos.net wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:12 +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 22:01, r...@tamos.net wrote:
>>> But picolisp is for experienced programmers[1], a class of people who
>>> have no problem building software.
>>
>> Isn't this a bit of a truism. There is nothing in the language
>> itself making it unsuitable for an UN-experienced programmer.
>>
>> Because of various particulars, the barrier is higher to get started in
>> for a random stranger, but nothing that can't be fixed eventually.
> 
> I agree, taken out of the original context, as you have it here.  But
> *in context*, the issue is "not having a pre-built package for
> picolisp will be (among other things) a barrier for new users."  I
> disagree with that.  I agree with Mike -- I don't believe it to be
> necessary.  One reason (given in this part) is that the typical new
> user won't see this as a barrier.  They tend not to be rank beginner
> programmers.  (I can't prove this, mind you, but I'm just relying on
> some anecdotal evidence; so, yes, it's arguable. :)
> 

Oh, I agree with you, for now it's like you say.
But given, that PicoLisp is such a charmingly small and simple language,
we should strive to lower where ever we can, so that one day,
it can be the language of choice for the inexperienced programmer,
for instance in a teaching setting at a university.

best regards,
Jakob
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: FreeBSD 11

[rick]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:12 +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> On 14/10/16 22:01, r...@tamos.net wrote:
> > But picolisp is for experienced programmers[1], a class of people who
> > have no problem building software.
> 
> Isn't this a bit of a truism. There is nothing in the language
> itself making it unsuitable for an UN-experienced programmer.
> 
> Because of various particulars, the barrier is higher to get started in
> for a random stranger, but nothing that can't be fixed eventually.

I agree, taken out of the original context, as you have it here.  But
*in context*, the issue is "not having a pre-built package for
picolisp will be (among other things) a barrier for new users."  I
disagree with that.  I agree with Mike -- I don't believe it to be
necessary.  One reason (given in this part) is that the typical new
user won't see this as a barrier.  They tend not to be rank beginner
programmers.  (I can't prove this, mind you, but I'm just relying on
some anecdotal evidence; so, yes, it's arguable. :)
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: FreeBSD 11

[Jakob Eriksson]

On 14/10/16 22:01, r...@tamos.net wrote:
> 
> But picolisp is for experienced programmers[1], a class of people who
> have no problem building software.


Isn't this a bit of a truism. There is nothing in the language
itself making it unsuitable for an UN-experienced programmer.

Because of various particulars, the barrier is higher to get started in
for a random stranger, but nothing that can't be fixed eventually.


best regards,
Jakob
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: FreeBSD 11

[rick]

Hi Rowan,

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
> steps,

Answer: don't build with manual steps, use scripts (and test them, of
course).[0]  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[1], 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.[2] 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

Notes

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,
http://software-lab.de/doc/ref.html.

2. NFSN is (a FreeBSD-based) one that allows the user to build/install
their own software; there are probably others.
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: FreeBSD 11

[Mike Pechkin]

> When you say you are an ex-ports maintainer, do you mean in general?
> or of a Picolisp Ports-package in particular?


​All related to OpenBSD.
It was in decades ago.
I cant help you here.

Re: FreeBSD 11

[Rowan Thorpe]

On 11 October 2016 at 16:03, Mike Pechkin  wrote:
> ..[snip]..
> I have PIL on every OS it supports, except IRIX.
> I can update or patch or compile PIL very fast without walls.
> Nobody stay between me and Lisp. Freedom is not for free.

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 steps, barrier to
entry for new users, less exposure for Picolisp to potential users,
etc. 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). They would only
consider installing a stable package from the "Ports tree", hence why
I am looking for that.

> ..[snip]..
> As ports ex-maintainer I'would say - you dont need port for PIL, this is
> jail and step backward.
> ..[snip]..

When you say you are an ex-ports maintainer, do you mean in general?
or of a Picolisp Ports-package in particular? If the latter, could you
please point me to the last version of the packaging you maintained
(if there was no maintainer after you), or to the version maintained
now (by whoever maintains it now, out of tree)? Having tinkered with a
few Gentoo ebuilds over the years (with Portage's similarity to Ports)
and with superficial FreeBSD familiarity as a "user", I am trying to
gauge if I could/would want to take on maintaining packaging for it in
Ports, and whether that exists in some form already, or would need
creating.

-- 
Rowan Thorpe
PGP fingerprint:
 BB0A 0787 C0EE BDD8 7F97  3D30 49F2 13A5 265D CCBD

"A riot is the language of the unheard." - Dr. Martin Luther King
"There is a great difference between worry and concern. A
worried person sees a problem, and a concerned person solves a
problem." - Harold Stephens
"Ignorance requires no apologies when it presents questions
rather than assertions." - Michael Sierchio (OpenSSL mailing list)
"What we need more than an end to wars is an end to the
beginning of all wars." - Franklin Roosevelt
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: FreeBSD 11

[rick]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:43 +0300, Mike Pechkin wrote:
> Who want or can test for build and test bundled tests on pil32 and 64 on
> FreeBSD 11 ?

Hi Mike,

I won't be able to get around to installing 11 for a bit; so, it's all
you, my friend! :)

Regarding the announcement btw, it's nice to see that the FreeBSD people
accomplished some nice work!

Best, --Rick
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

FreeBSD 11

[Mike Pechkin]

hi all,

%subj% is out:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-announce/2016-October/001760.html


Who want or can test for build and test bundled tests on pil32 and 64 on
FreeBSD 11 ?

Mike