#emc-devel | Logs for 2006-12-17

[03:59:39] <steve_stallings> steve_stallings is now known as steves_logging
[17:50:01] <jepler> it's been quiet here in #devel lately
[17:50:09] <jmkasunich> yeah
[17:51:26] <alex_joni> it's been quiet around emc devel all around
[17:52:53] <jmkasunich> yeah, I've been working on my machine and such instead of coding
[17:53:13] <cradek> we should probably be testing, not coding
[17:53:18] <alex_joni> I've also been busy
[17:53:49] <alex_joni> 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)
[17:54:02] <cradek> yeah
[17:54:18] <cradek> and I'm not convinced the 2.1 branch is relatively bug free yet.
[17:54:44] <alex_joni> how about making some testing packages (the ~ kind jepler suggested), and let some beta testers handle them
[17:55:16] <cradek> IMO beta testers should be testing cvs v2_1_branch
[17:55:37] <cradek> making packages is a big pain
[17:55:41] <alex_joni> ok, that might be another possibility
[17:55:46] <cradek> (but important for testing packaging I suppose)
[17:55:46] <alex_joni> cradek: why so?
[17:55:57] <alex_joni> except the signing stuff..
[17:57:36] <cradek> dunno, maybe I'm wrong
[17:57:55] <alex_joni> cradek: last I tried making packages on 2.1 it worked with 2 commands
[17:58:00] <alex_joni> configure -r
[17:58:02] <alex_joni> then debuild
[18:00:00] <cradek> do you think that would get more people to test it?
[18:00:44] <alex_joni> yes
[18:03:03] <cradek> ok :-)
[18:03:18] <alex_joni> especially not so devel-oriented people
[18:03:24] <alex_joni> but people who still find bugs :D
[18:04:29] <cradek> do you want to make the packages for the 2.1 cycle?
[18:04:36] <cradek> there's no reason it has to be me
[18:04:39] <alex_joni> I can a bit later
[18:04:48] <alex_joni> I'll put them online, but probably won't sign the repo
[18:05:11] <cradek> we'd want people to get your key in their apt
[18:06:55] <alex_joni> how about making that the board key instead of mine?
[18:08:22] <Lerneaen_Hydra_> from my point of view having 2.1 in the repository compared to loose binaries or source is a very very large factor
[18:08:48] <alex_joni> Lerneaen_Hydra_: if we do this, it will be in another repository
[18:09:21] <Lerneaen_Hydra_> what I meant was that it's apt-based rather than something else
[18:12:22] <jepler> yes it would be apt-based
[18:12:38] <jepler> you would change a line in /etc/apt/sources.list to get the testing packages instead of the stable packages
[18:16:46] <Lerneaen_Hydra_> from a users point of view that's much less frightening compared to grabbing a binary or *gasp* sourcecode and running that
[22:09:36] <alex_joni> wonder why Eric is building new kernels?
[22:13:11] <jepler> 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)
[22:13:23] <jepler> he said something about fedora ...
[22:13:36] <alex_joni> yeah, those are general instructions for rtai-ing
[22:14:05] <alex_joni> ubuntu (and any debian systems) are built using make-kpkg or something like that
[22:14:09] <alex_joni> been a while :)
[22:14:33] <jepler> 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
[22:15:28] <alex_joni> jepler: building a kernel package usually works right in the 10th iteration or so
[22:15:56] <alex_joni> and you usually only do that once..
[22:16:25] <alex_joni> what I mean is: I don't really believe in "exact instructions" to build kernel packages
[22:17:17] <jepler> clearly there are exact instructions
[22:17:58] <alex_joni> jepler: and clearly they would be outdated for the next kernel that is released
[22:18:14] <jepler> well, sure
[22:18:15] <alex_joni> fwiw Eric is using 2.6.18 from kernel.org not the ubuntu kernel, so all odds are off
[22:18:43] <jepler> but I'm talking about the GPL "complete corresponding source" ... "and scripts". you know, my favorite dead horse
[22:19:03] <jepler> 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
[22:19:06] <alex_joni> everything needed to rebuild the packages is in the packages
[22:19:18] <jepler> in any case, good luck to this fellow
[22:20:05] <alex_joni> it's a nice test of nerves.. :)
[22:21:43] <alex_joni> jepler: I think all that kpkg and related software really lives up to the motto JonE had in one of his programs
[22:21:59] <alex_joni> "this program was hard to write, it should be hard to use" or something like that