Re: linux distribution ?

[Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us>]

Sorry for top posting, another case in point:

Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A
warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might
be a good idea.

Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc.

The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file
becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install.

Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels
--enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create
Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither
would anyone else on this list.

Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile,
i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general
failure', make help could be advertised.

Cheers,
--Tim

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
> > Keir et al -
> > 
> > I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
> > spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
> > moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
> > python version).
> > 
> > Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
> > am interested in is xen development/test environment.
> > 
> > -dulloor
> 
> You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and hypervisor),
> which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
> 
> I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
> flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
> experimental patches.
> 
> The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
> of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
> 
> When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
> faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
> packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time going
> backwards, etc).
> 
> There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
> and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
> user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
> version is needed).
> 
> For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
> 
> It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
> makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
> generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
> 
> It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not be
> a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
> is needed to build.
> 
> Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
> anyway.
> 
> This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
> 
> Cheers,
> --Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel