steve_stallings is now known as steves_logging
it's been quiet here in #devel lately
it's been quiet around emc devel all around
yeah, I've been working on my machine and such instead of coding
we should probably be testing, not coding
I've also been busy
cradek: I think the main problem is that we have a very good product out there, and there's no much driving force behind 2.1 (except for a few users needing some features)
and I'm not convinced the 2.1 branch is relatively bug free yet.
how about making some testing packages (the ~ kind jepler suggested), and let some beta testers handle them
IMO beta testers should be testing cvs v2_1_branch
making packages is a big pain
ok, that might be another possibility
(but important for testing packaging I suppose)
cradek: why so?
except the signing stuff..
dunno, maybe I'm wrong
cradek: last I tried making packages on 2.1 it worked with 2 commands
do you think that would get more people to test it?
especially not so devel-oriented people
but people who still find bugs :D
do you want to make the packages for the 2.1 cycle?
there's no reason it has to be me
I can a bit later
I'll put them online, but probably won't sign the repo
we'd want people to get your key in their apt
how about making that the board key instead of mine?
from my point of view having 2.1 in the repository compared to loose binaries or source is a very very large factor
Lerneaen_Hydra_: if we do this, it will be in another repository
what I meant was that it's apt-based rather than something else
yes it would be apt-based
you would change a line in /etc/apt/sources.list to get the testing packages instead of the stable packages
from a users point of view that's much less frightening compared to grabbing a binary or *gasp* sourcecode and running that
wonder why Eric is building new kernels?
alex_joni: I don't know, but I wish that building the kernel we distribute was a little less opaque (not that I read whether he was trying to do it based on our instructions)
he said something about fedora ...
yeah, those are general instructions for rtai-ing
ubuntu (and any debian systems) are built using make-kpkg or something like that
been a while :)
there are instructions on the wiki for the kernel packages but I'm much less confident they work on the first try than our emc2 packages
[22:15:02] <alex_joni> http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?UbuntuBreezyPackages
jepler: building a kernel package usually works right in the 10th iteration or so
and you usually only do that once..
what I mean is: I don't really believe in "exact instructions" to build kernel packages
clearly there are exact instructions
jepler: and clearly they would be outdated for the next kernel that is released
fwiw Eric is using 2.6.18 from kernel.org not the ubuntu kernel, so all odds are off
but I'm talking about the GPL "complete corresponding source" ... "and scripts". you know, my favorite dead horse
for *that* kernel package, there are exact instructions .. but they are perhaps lost to time, if the ones in the wiki are inaccurate in some way
everything needed to rebuild the packages is in the packages
in any case, good luck to this fellow
it's a nice test of nerves.. :)
jepler: I think all that kpkg and related software really lives up to the motto JonE had in one of his programs
"this program was hard to write, it should be hard to use" or something like that