RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

I'd like to propose to split diet-x11 and libx11 into the following:

diet-x11: as small as possible, without stuff like cms and xkb
small-x11: small, but with cms and xkb, usefull for highend palmtops and small settop-boxes
fat-x11: biggest version, usefull for big-bad-workstation images.

what do you think about it?

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFu2TcMkyGM64RGpERAhNpAJ9IkgRiU747JFiNqaRu7nGIbhh2UACfd+RQ
9wOPv/sei/R/hz/p4C1YCtM=
=EPN3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Koen Kooi schreef:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to propose to split diet-x11 and libx11 into the following:
> 
> diet-x11: as small as possible, without stuff like cms and xkb
> small-x11: small, but with cms and xkb, usefull for highend palmtops and small settop-boxes
> fat-x11: biggest version, usefull for big-bad-workstation images.
> 
> what do you think about it?

Nobody is thinking something?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFyFWSMkyGM64RGpERArJMAJ9cvjzYMcYk0FpRgD1U611t6x2ebACfT4Ho
2EdPSG1Cz7DhP89qC6vIXPw=
=Q8zQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[pHilipp Zabel]

On 2/6/07, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Koen Kooi schreef:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to propose to split diet-x11 and libx11 into the following:
> >
> > diet-x11: as small as possible, without stuff like cms and xkb
> > small-x11: small, but with cms and xkb, usefull for highend palmtops and small settop-boxes
> > fat-x11: biggest version, usefull for big-bad-workstation images.
> >
> > what do you think about it?
>
> Nobody is thinking something?

I was thinking I don't like the diet/small/fat naming, you are mixing metaphors.
small/medium/big I'd understand,
or diet/light/supersize or
slender/chubby/fat...
I thought I'd better keep that to myself :) Oh well...

One thing I'd like to see would be a different package name for all
three of them, so we can actually have all versions in the feeds
(currently both libx11 and diet-x11 build packages with the same
name).

regards
Philipp

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Graeme Gregory]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:16:51AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Koen Kooi schreef:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to propose to split diet-x11 and libx11 into the following:
> > 
> > diet-x11: as small as possible, without stuff like cms and xkb
> > small-x11: small, but with cms and xkb, usefull for highend palmtops and small settop-boxes
> > fat-x11: biggest version, usefull for big-bad-workstation images.
> > 
> > what do you think about it?
> 
> Nobody is thinking something?

BRAINS!!!!! BRAINS!!!!!!

Sounds sensible to me.

G

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

pHilipp Zabel schreef:
> On 2/6/07, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Koen Kooi schreef:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose to split diet-x11 and libx11 into the following:
>>>
>>> diet-x11: as small as possible, without stuff like cms and xkb
>>> small-x11: small, but with cms and xkb, usefull for highend palmtops and small settop-boxes
>>> fat-x11: biggest version, usefull for big-bad-workstation images.
>>>
>>> what do you think about it?
>> Nobody is thinking something?
> 
> I was thinking I don't like the diet/small/fat naming, you are mixing metaphors.
> small/medium/big I'd understand,
> or diet/light/supersize or
> slender/chubby/fat...
> I thought I'd better keep that to myself :) Oh well...
> 
> One thing I'd like to see would be a different package name for all
> three of them, so we can actually have all versions in the feeds
> (currently both libx11 and diet-x11 build packages with the same
> name).

However annoying, it is a feature which we can exploit. If we take care that PR_small-x11
< PR_medium-x11 < PR_big-x11 we can split those into different feeds containing libx11 +
dependant apps.

regards,

Koen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFyF95MkyGM64RGpERAvJcAJ9TrmkHuPzCtL24vDhLqCYjKk4qgQCgg5+d
oxkgTyx+D10nfJ3KzZ5pPO8=
=U8Za
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 11:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > One thing I'd like to see would be a different package name for all
> > three of them, so we can actually have all versions in the feeds
> > (currently both libx11 and diet-x11 build packages with the same
> > name).
> 
> However annoying, it is a feature which we can exploit. If we take care that PR_small-x11
> < PR_medium-x11 < PR_big-x11 we can split those into different feeds containing libx11 +
> dependant apps.

Its probably unrealistic to maintain that and it will end up in a mess.

If we are going down this route, we should probably have applications
say which flavour of libx11 they want through some virtual namespaces.
virtual/libx11 would mean they'll work with any of the versions.

I'm also not keen on your naming. As Philipp said, it mixes different
naming styles and we should really have one.

Richard

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Purdie schreef:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 11:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> One thing I'd like to see would be a different package name for all
>>> three of them, so we can actually have all versions in the feeds
>>> (currently both libx11 and diet-x11 build packages with the same
>>> name).
>> However annoying, it is a feature which we can exploit. If we take care that PR_small-x11
>> < PR_medium-x11 < PR_big-x11 we can split those into different feeds containing libx11 +
>> dependant apps.
> 
> Its probably unrealistic to maintain that and it will end up in a mess.

We could try...

> 
> If we are going down this route, we should probably have applications
> say which flavour of libx11 they want through some virtual namespaces.
> virtual/libx11 would mean they'll work with any of the versions.

It basically boils down to:

a) I need basic x11 (gtk+, qt, etc)
b) I need cms (rxvt, icewm) (+32kB iirc)
c) I need xkb (xserver-xorg, xkb*) (+80kB iirc)
d) I need obsolete stuff (Xaw) (+2MB iirc)

a -> libx11-minimal.bb
b -> libx11-cms.bb
c -> libx11-cms-xkb.bb
d -> libx11-full.bb

Is that like you want?

> I'm also not keen on your naming. As Philipp said, it mixes different
> naming styles and we should really have one.

right, I agree

Regards,

Koen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFyHUXMkyGM64RGpERAgbXAJ9jRkQlw6BNLIewEG7jwSsS5VaF6wCgoTaD
68eTtzTNFBf454GycnE9Syk=
=aqpG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:31 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Richard Purdie schreef:
> > If we are going down this route, we should probably have applications
> > say which flavour of libx11 they want through some virtual namespaces.
> > virtual/libx11 would mean they'll work with any of the versions.
> 
> It basically boils down to:
> 
> a) I need basic x11 (gtk+, qt, etc)
> b) I need cms (rxvt, icewm) (+32kB iirc)
> c) I need xkb (xserver-xorg, xkb*) (+80kB iirc)
> d) I need obsolete stuff (Xaw) (+2MB iirc)

Are those compressed or uncompressed sizes? For the sake of 100kb
uncompressed, I'm tempted to suggest adding features to the basic x11...

> a -> libx11-minimal.bb
> b -> libx11-cms.bb
> c -> libx11-cms-xkb.bb
> d -> libx11-full.bb
> 
> Is that like you want?

Kind of.

libx11-minimal: RPROVIDES = "virtual/libx11"
libx11-xkb:     RPROVIDES = "virtual/libx11 virtual/libx11-xkb"
libx11-full:    RPROVIDES = "virtual/libx11 virtual/libx11-xkb virtual/libx11-full"
(along with whatever the magic is to say they're equivalent and replace
each other)

Then anything requiring Xaw can RDEPENDS = "virtual/libx11-full" etc.

Richard

Re: RFC: diet-x11, small-x11 and fat-x11

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Purdie schreef:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:31 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Richard Purdie schreef:
>>> If we are going down this route, we should probably have applications
>>> say which flavour of libx11 they want through some virtual namespaces.
>>> virtual/libx11 would mean they'll work with any of the versions.
>> It basically boils down to:
>>
>> a) I need basic x11 (gtk+, qt, etc)
>> b) I need cms (rxvt, icewm) (+32kB iirc)
>> c) I need xkb (xserver-xorg, xkb*) (+80kB iirc)
>> d) I need obsolete stuff (Xaw) (+2MB iirc)
> 
> Are those compressed or uncompressed sizes? 

Compressed, armv5te :( We should check those again including multiple architectures.

> For the sake of 100kb
> uncompressed, I'm tempted to suggest adding features to the basic x11...
> 
>> a -> libx11-minimal.bb
>> b -> libx11-cms.bb
>> c -> libx11-cms-xkb.bb
>> d -> libx11-full.bb
>>
>> Is that like you want?
> 
> Kind of.
> 
> libx11-minimal: RPROVIDES = "virtual/libx11"
> libx11-xkb:     RPROVIDES = "virtual/libx11 virtual/libx11-xkb"
> libx11-full:    RPROVIDES = "virtual/libx11 virtual/libx11-xkb virtual/libx11-full"
> (along with whatever the magic is to say they're equivalent and replace
> each other)
> 
> Then anything requiring Xaw can RDEPENDS = "virtual/libx11-full" etc.

After all that we still need a way to clean staging from time to time to avoid linking
everything to the full one. (packaged-staging?)

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFyJF2MkyGM64RGpERAmDoAJ49gACGU+ux13OHkpnu543ihw6hbACeIBOg
v5VYflB0g9E6AhlrVlaaE1k=
=UXU1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----