OpenEuphoria

Re: nix config next steps

• Posted by ChrisBurch3 <crylex at gm?il.co?> Dec 22, 2007
• 487 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