1. nix config next steps
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at ?m?il.com> Dec 21, 2007
- 493 views
So now that we have some code to play with, we need to keep the process moving. The next step is to start documenting the changes, including in the standard euphoria documentation, but also we need to write a man page. Is there anyone interested in starting the man page? I'd say that we probably want to make a single page to cover exu/ecu/backendu/bind/shroud.* Then we need to start working on packaging. There are two main package formats that are probably worth targeting. I run a Debian based system, so I'm mostly interested in building a .deb package, but I'm guessing we have some RPM users around here, as well. I've started looking over the Debian policy manual, and some docs about creating .deb packages. It's certainly not a trivial task to do it correctly (meaning in a sufficient state that it might be included in the Debian distribution) which I think everyone would agree should be a goal of this project. Any feedback/assistance is encouraged and appreciated. Matt * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what?
2. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by ChrisBurch3 <crylex at gm?il.co?> Dec 22, 2007
- 488 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > > > So now that we have some code to play with, we need to keep the process > moving. The next step is to start documenting the changes, including > in the standard euphoria documentation, but also we need to write a > man page. > > Is there anyone interested in starting the man page? I'd say that we probably > want to make a single page to cover exu/ecu/backendu/bind/shroud.* Hi Matt, I wanted to see what sort of response you got here first before chipping in. I don't want you to think that I am abandoning you, but as for me, at this stage I would find it difficult to make a major contribution. However, keep the lines of communication open, and who knows, in a few months. This is a very worthwhile project, so keep at it, I will kepp testing the releases and giving feedback in this respect. > > Then we need to start working on packaging. There are two main package > formats that are probably worth targeting. I run a Debian based system, > so I'm mostly interested in building a .deb package, but I'm guessing we > have some RPM users around here, as well. > Yes, me for one - this may be an area I _could_ _possibly_ help in, if you are not in too much of a rush. May I suggest you get a working install script working before going for a full deb / rpm package? This may be easier to test than full blown packages. > I've started looking over the Debian policy manual, and some docs about > creating .deb packages. It's certainly not a trivial task to do it > correctly (meaning in a sufficient state that it might be included in > the Debian distribution) which I think everyone would agree should be > a goal of this project. Absolutely, ultimately. > > Any feedback/assistance is encouraged and appreciated. > > Matt > > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? No, they should be kept the same. Why - because thats what we're used too, Chris
3. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Jerry Story <story.jerry at gm?il.c?m> Dec 22, 2007
- 484 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > > Is there anyone interested in starting the man page? I'd say that we > probably want to make a single page to cover exu/ecu/backendu/bind/shroud.* Would there be any problem with using the Euphoria documentation as is? For example: man exu would get the Euphoria Reference Manual. man ecu would get the Euphoria to C Translator Manual. > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? If you don't change the names now, then after some years there will be more resistance to changing the names. Easier now.
4. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Julio C. Galaret Viera <galaret at adi?et.?om.uy> Dec 22, 2007
- 482 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > > > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? I think that names like "bind" might lead to confusion. BIND = Berkeley Internet Name Domain Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND JG
5. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by ChrisBurch3 <crylex at gm?il.co?> Dec 22, 2007
- 471 views
Julio C. Galaret Viera wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > > > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the > > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict > > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? > > I think that names like "bind" might lead to confusion. > > BIND = Berkeley Internet Name Domain > > Please see <a > href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND</a> > > JG Oh yeah! Go ahead change em! Chris
6. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmai?.?om> Dec 22, 2007
- 501 views
Jerry Story wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > Is there anyone interested in starting the man page? I'd say that we > > probably want to make a single page to cover exu/ecu/backendu/bind/shroud.* > > Would there be any problem with using the Euphoria documentation as is? > For example: > man exu would get the Euphoria Reference Manual. > man ecu would get the Euphoria to C Translator Manual. man files have to be in nroff format. I'm figuring that we'd explain what each executable does, give the summary of command line options, and tell the user where the other documentation is. There are ways to install the html files into an integrated help system, which we could do. Try 'dhelp' on a debian system (assuming you have dhelp installed). We might want to create an index page to help navigate to all the different documents that we have (reference manual, library, etc.). > > > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the > > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict > > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? > > If you don't change the names now, then after some years there will be more > resistance to changing the names. Easier now. I agree. I'm thinking that we can maybe extend the naming theme we already have with exu, ecu, exw, etc. Matt
7. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gm?il.com> Dec 22, 2007
- 488 views
Julio C. Galaret Viera wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > > > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the > > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict > > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? > > I think that names like "bind" might lead to confusion. > > BIND = Berkeley Internet Name Domain > > Please see tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND Yes, this was the thought that first sparked me to ask this question. Matt
8. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at a?ricul?ure.gouv.fr> Dec 22, 2007
- 476 views
Julio C. Galaret Viera wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > > > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that the > > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these conflict > > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? > > I think that names like "bind" might lead to confusion. > > BIND = Berkeley Internet Name Domain > > Please see <a > href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND</a> > > JG Why not bindeu, shroudeu and backendeu? They don't sound too unfamiliar and are less likely to clash with anything else. CChris
9. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at ?luefro?.com> Dec 22, 2007
- 482 views
CChris wrote: > > Julio C. Galaret Viera wrote: > > > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Are names like backendu, bind and shroud too generic? Assuming that > > > the > > > ultimate goal is to get accepted into Linux distributions, do these > > > conflict > > > with anything already out there? Should we change them? If so, to what? > > > > I think that names like "bind" might lead to confusion. > > > > BIND = Berkeley Internet Name Domain > > > > Please see <a > > href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIND</a> > > > > JG > > Why not bindeu, shroudeu and backendeu? > They don't sound too unfamiliar and are less likely to clash with anything > else. > It would make more sense to call them: bind.eu, shroud.eu and backend.eu Bernie My files in archive: WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API Can be downloaded here: http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
10. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gm??l.com> Dec 22, 2007
- 488 views
Bernie Ryan wrote: > > CChris wrote: > > > > > > Why not bindeu, shroudeu and backendeu? > > They don't sound too unfamiliar and are less likely to clash with anything > > else. > > > > It would make more sense to call them: > > bind.eu, shroud.eu and backend.eu > One issue with that scheme is that they look like include files, which they aren't. I kinda like: eubind eushroud eubackend Matt
11. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.??> Dec 22, 2007
- 494 views
Matt Lewis wrote: <snip> > I kinda like: > > eubind eushroud eubackend votes_for_this_scheme += 1 Regards, Juergen -- There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are /obviously/ no deficiencies and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no /obvious/ deficiencies. [C.A.R. Hoare (1987), The Emperor's Old Clothes]
12. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEu??oria.com> Dec 22, 2007
- 484 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > Bernie Ryan wrote: > > CChris wrote: > > > > > > Why not bindeu, shroudeu and backendeu? > > > They don't sound too unfamiliar and are less likely to clash with anything > > > else. > > > > > > > It would make more sense to call them: > > > > bind.eu, shroud.eu and backend.eu > > > > One issue with that scheme is that they look like include files, which they > aren't. > > I kinda like: > > eubind eushroud eubackend Sounds good to me. euphoria/bin/ed also conflicts with the name of the ancient Unix ed editor. It will be great if we can get Euphoria accepted into a popular Linux distribution. Thanks for your efforts! Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
13. Re: nix config next steps
- Posted by ChrisBurch2 <crylex at ?reeuk.co.u?> Dec 22, 2007
- 494 views
- Last edited Dec 23, 2007
Juergen Luethje wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > <snip> > > > I kinda like: > > > > eubind eushroud eubackend > > votes_for_this_scheme += 1 votes_for_this_scheme += 1 Chris > > Regards, > Juergen > > -- > There are two ways of constructing a software design: > One way is to make it so simple that there are /obviously/ no deficiencies > and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no /obvious/ > deficiencies. [C.A.R. Hoare (1987), The Emperor's Old Clothes]