Pike-devel

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

3044 discussions

Caudium is looking for a new maintainer...
by Xavier Beaudouin 06 May '05

06 May '05

[Sorry for cross-posting here] Hello, The Caudium Group will release Caudium 1.4 RSN (mostly next week). Because I have less and less time to work with Caudium and I will change job (eg stop to work for an ISP), I will have less and less time to work with Pike / Caudium / .... So this is a open letter for people that wishes to maintain Caudium and make it better than now... I will drop maintainer ship whatever a new maintainer is choosen or not after mid may 2005. So don't hesitate to contact me for that. /Xavier

1 0

modules and the core distribution
by Bill Welliver 03 May '05

03 May '05

I noticed the checkin of a new module the other day and was reminded that we're long overdue for a discussion of Pike distribution bloat. This has come up at the last two conferences, and we always "table" the discussion for later. I think now is a good time to have it since we're not coming up on an impending new stable release. It seems to me that there are a fairly large number of modules distributed with Pike that have a corresponding low number of potential users. I'm not suggesting that the modules don't have merit, but am suggesting that perhaps the audience is so small that it becomes clutter to others. Does it really make sense to keep adding these modules to the core distribution when they could just as easily be distributed separately? As it stands now, Pike distributions are 10MB, and take a painfully long amount of time to compile. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders why they have to configure and compile things like HTTPLoop and SDL... (just picking two that I'd remove, not that they're at the top of my list) I realize that there was a time when including things in the core was a necessary evil due to compilation difficulty, but that's not been the case for at least a year or two... Any thoughts? Bill

10 31

Re: modules and the core distribution
by Per Hedbor () ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 03 May '05

03 May '05

> We need to work on configure times, though. > The largest gain (about 400% or so) can be had by generating configure > from an old version of autoconf. And a secondary rather large gain can be had by not having separate configure-scripts for each module, but instead generating a toplevel configure from the subconfigures or something. And removing redundant and other rather unnessesary tests (I'm guilty here, I often add tests for each function even though the presence of one generally means that the others are available too, such as the {get,set,list,llist,lset,lget,fget,fset,flist}xattr methods I just added). And also stopping the module configure scripts as soon as a required feature is found to be missing (as an example, in the GL module, when no GL library is found, stop looking for functions in the non existing library, and inversely, stop looking for more GL libraries once the first has been found)

4 16

Re: modules and the core distribution
by Martin Nilsson (DivX Inc.) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 02 May '05

02 May '05

But that was an irrelevant comment I just realized.

1 0

Re: modules and the core distribution
by Johan Sundstr�m (Achtung Liebe!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 01 May '05

01 May '05

> I'm willing to work on this (though my available time is somewhat > limited). I think a good first step would be to make individual modules > available for download and install separately (perhaps via monger?). Sounds like a workable approach for a quiet migration to externality. Especially if it would (as I presume is the idea) not impact from what source (in this case the main Pike repository) the modules end up there. Makes it easy to make both small and large pikes without any loss of development support tools for modules presently enjoying such privileges.

1 0

Re: modules and the core distribution
by Martin Nilsson (DivX Inc.) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 01 May '05

01 May '05

I think SDL, GTK and Stdio (I'm thinking of Readline/Terminfo here) all have a place in a standard distribution since they are essential I/O-modules for a wide range of applications (though in specific domains). But I guess this discussion really shouldn't be about specific modules.

2 1

Re: modules and the core distribution
by Peter Bortas ＠ Pike developers forum 01 May '05

01 May '05

>... see >no reason to have to download and clutter their installation with >modules they'll never use. That's another matter. There are already the --without-foo flags, but if someone put some research into it there could be a --small-footprint-build flag that is shorhand for several --without-foo.

1 0

System things from file
by Martin Nilsson (DivX Inc.) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 30 Apr '05

30 Apr '05

Is there a smart way to have the file module define two modules, one builtin and one that can be inherited into System.pmod, to avoid having new, nongeneric things as either efuns or in Stdio?

2 2

Re: HTTPS
by Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

No, I'm replying through the lyskom <-> email gateway. I don't know how to make it add or remove your personal address. The bug resolved here is simply that a blocking read on an ssl stream would loop infinitely if it hit EOF. It was introduced in the rewritten sslfile.pike in 7.6 and later. The old version doesn't have that bug, but it has a whole slew of other ones. If you are experiencing ssl bugs with pike >= 7.6 (not running in 7.4 compat mode) then I probably don't know about them. If you are using the old sslfile then there's a good chance your problems have been fixed.

1 0

Re: HTTPS
by Martin Nilsson (DivX Inc.) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

We are planning one. Peter Bortas and I were just discussing the todo-list.

3 2

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel