Re: Will the ROOT CVS Repository be a "real" CVS Repository?

From: Jacek M. Holeczek (holeczek@us.edu.pl)
Date: Thu Aug 12 1999 - 00:47:24 MEST


Hi,
Fons> Currently Rene, Valery and I use CMZ (an open source code management
Fons> system)
If I remember well CMZ is a commercial product, free for some users, but
NOT free for many others. Even the binary distributions are available only
for people who have access to the cernlib. The root, in turn, can be 
downloaded by anyone ... .
Fons> Further, using CMZ or CVS is irrelevant since the repository 
Fons> will be read only anyway. All proposed patches will only be included
The usability of this repository will not depend on who has the write
access, but mainly on what it will contain and how it will be managed.
Fons> So coming back to the CVS repository I am putting online. It will
Fons> contain all sources as distributed in the ROOT source tar. Whenever
Let me ask two questions here :
	1. do you mean that in order to get the "full" source code I
	   will still need to download ALSO the binary release ?
	2. will bug fixes be committed into the repository AS SOON AS they
	   are known, or will they be "published" each few days with the
	   next root "release" ?
Fons> use CVS because "basically it sucks").
It sucks, but for the moment there is nothing better available.
Valery>Did you pay attention ROOT is not UNIX application only ?
Nor is the CVS.
Matt> But why should a user have to "hope" that their system's
Matt> configuration is compatible with ROOT in the first place?  The
Matt> problem of creating dynamically configurable software was solved
Matt> many years ago by the GNU project.
I have to agree with Jeff here. The problem "was solved ... by the GNU
project", but was NOT solved by the ROOT project. Thus I think that it
would be good if binary releases directly corresponded to "default"
system/compiler as delivered with appropriate OS distributions ( in case
of RH5.2 it would be egcs 1.0.3 - an RPM with all "dependencies"
would be nice ). Otherwise there is not much sense in binary
distributions, if the end-user is expected to provide specific additional
utilities/libraries. In this case the user would anyhow need to recompile
everything from scratch.
Finally, there is a "religious myth" that there are many more "binary"
packages distributed then "source" codes. No wonder :
	1. to get a working "source" you NEED to download binary
	   distribution - and in case you have more platforms, you need
	   to download binaries for all of them, while the source
	   distribution only once
	2. having in mind all these problems with compiling root from
	   scratch ...
	3. last, but not least, this myth does not take into account the
	   number of end-users who are using binaries that were created
	   from these downloaded source code distributions at all ...
	( 4. Windoze users ... )
Best regards,
Jacek.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:43:38 MET