Re: The Distribution

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Rick Jones wrote:

> George Bonser wrote:
> > 
> > I am working on it ... going through building boot disk sets on Debian
> > 1.3.1 right now.  There is also an NFS mount of a debian mirror on Corsica
> > now in its public FTP directory.
> 
> Very good.  Is that NFS also the proposed destination for all SEUL? 
> Should I mount it for building the GUI tree?  Or is seul providing HD
> space on their systems?

Some FTP space was mentioned.  I have a hardware upgrade to do on Corsica
so I will probably add disk and memory.  She has gobs of bandwidth but I
do not want to take advantage of a rather charitable situation.  As I drop
her newsfeeds (I will keep comp.* and linux.*) that should free up some
bandwidth. I have done some things already like put the newsfeeds on
15minute delay.  This prevents the transfer of articles to my news
neighbors unless they have not been offered by any other source.

Note that I might not have been clear in my language.  corsica's
/pub/debian directory is an NFS mount over the internet from another
debian mirror. If you have a resonably fast net connection and a static IP
I can export it for you but I am simply mounting the /pub/mirrors/debian
from ftp.kernel.org so you can do the same thing and cut me out.

When I get a SEUL tree, I will export it.


> I don't know if we should use unique package names.  I was trying to
> compile a windows manager to check out and found imake was missing.  It
> isn't called the imake pkg any more under Debian but is in the README
> for compiling.  There must be some standard naming convention someplace
> to use.  At least accepted naming conventions to go by.


We are going to need unique names if we change anything. For example ...
fvwm2_X.YY.Z-N.deb might become fvwm2_X.YY.Z-N_SEUL.deb.  This prevents
someone from having their SEUL package overwritten accidently if they
connect to a debian archive.  We make the SEUL package conflict with the
Debian package so it will throw you into a conflict resolution and alert

> I've seen a lot of bitching about the dist being nothing but talk, but
> I've posted several messages concerning the main and installation GUI's
> and got one response.  I don't want to get halfway finished with either
> or both pkgs and then get bombarded with objections, comments,
> recomendations, etc.

So far from what I have seen in the /etc area, fvwm2 seems to be the most
extensible and the most easilly auto-updated and the most easilly
customized. The dotfile generator also allows user configuration.

> 
> I am going to post last call for comments on making WM2 the initial
> install GUI.  After that I will close it and start building the core and
> base pkgs for it.
> 
> Coments?

See above.  I am not against anything but I truely feel that the fvwm2
package is currently our best option.  One problem I had with WM on my
system was that it displays something down in the lower left corner of the
screen but I can not make out what it is. Fvwm2 displayed fine, icons,
pager, even representations of apps in the pager. It is a Cirrus CG-5428
card.  If we go with wm, I am going to have a broken display until I can
figure out what is wrong.  wm was broken at all resolutions.


George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.