Re: Trying to get Windows building CRM114

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, open source or not, it's not built into any common operating systems
> or system utilities. and the compression and bandwidth difference is....
> quite modest. For a public utility, it's a turnoff right from the start. It
> also presents yet another security issue of another unfamiliar, unpopular
> utility on one's system, even if it is open sourced.

For 'commonly wanted' packages (crm114 is one) I offer both tar.bz2
and .7z packages for that reason: when folks don't want the smaller
type as they don't want to add another tool to their local arsenal,
they can still get at the stuff.

I considered the patched TRE as 'special' (only meant for crm114) and
thus didn't bother with the bz2 alternative. Anyway, good field test;
I'll see if I can adjust that process so always both bz2 / zip and 7z
are put online for every package (zip is OS-supported on Windows, so
same argument for that one, though package sizes are ... ).


>> I don't exactly follow that last bit, sounds to me like a read-only git
>> repository then, right?
>> Anyway, go ahead.
>
> That's what I'm setting up for Bill for CRM114. I can put up a separate git
> repository for *your* material adjacent to it, but that wouldn't be as
> useful as your using a good source control system and submitting changes
> there.

Hm, well, I'd say just put it up there, at least it has all the public
activity together and allows me to see how I can mix that with my
local process (which includes quite a bit of non-open source
development around crm114, the trial dregs of which you've hit in that
.sln you got.

RCS-wise, I'm kind of a polyglot: svn, cvs, SourceSafe (ehhhhh...
[censored]), Perforce all have a place over here. Mostly depends on
what commercial partners are using for project X.
I am considering going with git (several folks are pushing me to go
that route) for in-house development at least, but the migration
didn't make it to the front of the priority queue yet, 's all.
git-integration in MSVC is one thing on the gotta-see-this list as
quite a bit of work is MSVC/MSXYZ based. Not a must-have, that, but
quite an incentive anyways.

The only real issue I have with an external repo is 'IP leakage' risk.
It's fine when some trial crud and some unresolvable deps makes it
into the exports, but the main job doesn't get beyond firewall #2,
period.



>> Oh, and how recent were these 'I want PCRE support' inquiries exactly? At
>> least none of those came through these mailing lists the last 1.5 years or
>> I've missed something vital there.
>>
> I'm not the one who got asked: from discussion here, it's considerably
> harder than one might realize because the regexp syntax is distinct.

Check.


> Heh. *I* am not such a strong imbiber of the Perl Kook-Aid.

Excellent. So that makes it a bit of chance for democratic process
then: if serious capital-wielding customers want PCRE, it's a go, huge
waves of popular demand is a serious incentive, anything less is a
certified ditch, off to /dev/null
Given the waves of appeal ripping through this ML about that earlier Q
about PCRE, I guess its odds like Mally No-Show its a goner. Good
riddance.


> Cool. If I can encourage something like git source control, I'd be thrilled
> to publish a repository from your code and tweak it as necessary and hand it
> off to you, and that would allow me to sync to any changes you make (and
> publish them to you in graceful fashion).

I'm interested.

> I'd just publish a URL to Microsoft's download site. Even if I trust *your*
> code, especially after review, installing binary service packs from someone
> other than the vendor... well, at my last workplace, it would have gotten me
> fired, for violating policies I wrote.
[...]
> I've read it. I didn't say 'Windows'  I said 'Microsoft'. I admit to being
> sloppy about what is Windows and what is Visual Studio: I'd consider a
> vendor's designated compiler part of the OS, even if they sell it as a
> separte product. But I'll try to keep your gums from bleeding by being more
> cautious about the langage.

Don't bother about the language. My gums are fine. It's about
glossing: these are the 'redistributables', not the OS Service Packs,
not the MSVC Service Packs or any other 'Service Pack' for that
matter.
This stuff is what you'll find on every vendors' CD / DVD when you
click 'setup / install' for their software on a virgin Windows
machine: it's what gets installed under the hood alongside the apps.
You wouldn't have noticed if I'd published the bins as an MSI or setup
package.
Anyway, thanks and sleep tight.

> Have a good night.....

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten / Best regards,

Ger Hobbelt

--------------------------------------------------
web:    http://www.hobbelt.com/
        http://www.hebbut.net/
mail:   [email protected]
mobile: +31-6-11 120 978
--------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H