[haiku-development] Re: AW: Re: What's the status of Haiku?
- From: James Leone <linuxcpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:14:55 -0700
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Sean Healy <jalopeura@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 01:21:45 -0700, James Leone <linuxcpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> The second surprise is that package development has appeared to have
> declined since it was put in place.
>
> The truth is that the new package manager locked up the system to a point
> that package development is too tedious to work on.
>
>
> So I know from experience that the process of making a package is not in
> and of itself tedious. And the haikuports recipes automate package building
> anyway. What's left is the process of patching the code (which would have
> to be done anyway) and building a recipe. And there's already a python 3.2
> recipe and patch to use as a starting point, so most of the work has been
> done, yes? Or does the 3.2 patch not work because of the /usr issue?
>
>
The package manager is like a Porsche, but many users don't know how to
drive a stick shift.
I'm not speaking of impossibilities or absolutes here. I'm really talking
about making things more doable.
Sure, its not impossible, I've got Python 3.6 working with the exception of
the zlib and _ssl modules. The problem is the amount of time it takes.
I COULDN'T HAVE DONE MUCH AT ALL WITHOUT HAIKUPORTS, WHICH IS GREAT.
But I also found some stuff myself and need to deliver some info to more
capable hands.
If we had a larger user base (not our fault) I wouldn't have even noticed
what I've mentioned.
I would say the package manager is the best I've ever used, it works like a
dream.
Because I wouldn't try to compile packages myself, we would have a large
suite of up to date applications in the application store.
I think we need that and the fact that we don't have it tells me that
something systematic is causing some kind of barrier to a more positive
result.
So this discussion, for me, isn't about a kernel.
As far as I can see the FreeBSD drivers being portable was smart and I have
faith it will work.
To me, the discussion is really about making things more doable with what
we have to work with, at least now.
Sorry I kind of suck, but I'm trying.
When you get 10,000 additional awesome developers like yourselves, package
management design will probably be a dream for them.
Its not Haiku's fault that I'm not a wizard. I just know I'm not a wizard
but want to help so I'm asking if there is a way it can be done.
I'm trying to help get the plane flying so I can go back to where my skill
level should have me, mostly irrelevant.
I've learned a lot in this process though.
For bozos like myself, it is already a challenge just to get these things
compiled. But I'm trying because I want these things compiled.
I see a good operating system that deserves a much bigger user base. And,
unfortunately users want a large suite of available applications.
Its less doable bozo's like myself without a /usr directory, its more work.
Maybe there can be a bozo edition for guys like me.
So for me, its not impossible to do without a /usr directory (or an arm),
but with a larger workload, less gets done. Less apps, less people. Less
people, less apps, more bozos like me trying to compile.
It doesn't matter who is correct - some random Pythin module or Haiku -
that's not important to an end user. All an end user wants is an apps that
needs Python. But they probably don't know what a Python is.
All they know is that their favorite applications aren't in Haiku yet.
Haiku is a beautiful work. With all the hours gone into it - I don't want
to see that be underused!
I don't actually think that the /usr directory is going to be the magic
elixir that will solve all the issues that naturally come with porting
applications though.
> The number one issue Haiku faces is manpower. But problem is that the
> number of people that can help out is limited. I'm not speaking in the
> classical general sense however, there are some people with intermediate
> skills that under less restrictive circumstances, could probably pitch in
> by compiling applications for people to use.
>
> I'm one of those people. I've got libX11 (1.62) and Python 3.4 compiled.
> But going further is proving difficult because there are just too many
> Python modules that are dependencies that require a writeable /usr
> directory to push forward.
>
> But even before that...its a struggle the whole way, even with patches
> ready. So...the more difficult it is to help...the less help we will get
> from the community.
>
> It seems that Python wants a /usr directory and the inability to create
> one has cost numerous hours.
>
> It seems that your beef is not with the package management system itself,
> but with the associated directory structure changes. But really, the
> problem you've run into is not caused by the change, it was merely
> uncovered by the change.
>
> 1) Python itself can be and has been ported to platforms without a /usr
> directory. It's even been ported to Haiku. You've even compiled it
> yourself. This, then, is not the problem.
>
> 2) If a particular Python module requires a /usr directory, then the
> author of the module has either messed up, or made the conscious decision
> to produce non-portable code. Either way, the fault is with the author of
> the module, not with Haiku.
>
> Basically, your problem is that you are trying to port inherently
> non-portable Python modules.
>
>
Other related posts:
