[gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[sanchan]

Hi all, I'm working on TinyOS related ebuilds (Bug #78908) and since actually 
there are 20 ebuilds in my overlay may be worth proposing a dev-tos category.
It will take a few weeks in order to have all the ebuilds updated for the new 
release of tinyos, have them reviewed by peer an committed to the tree, but it's 
a lot easier to make a category early rather than moving stuff.
-- 
Sandro (Sanchan)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Alexandre Buisse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 13:44:52 +0100, sanchan wrote:

> Hi all, I'm working on TinyOS related ebuilds (Bug #78908) and since 
> actually there are 20 ebuilds in my overlay may be worth proposing a 
> dev-tos category.
> It will take a few weeks in order to have all the ebuilds updated for the 
> new release of tinyos, have them reviewed by peer an committed to the tree, 
> but it's a lot easier to make a category early rather than moving stuff.

I don't know TinyOS, but I assume it is a "toy OS", like minix and many others.
What about a dev-toyos category? It could be great to have some other
toy OS, including the one I have been working on (funk, see
http://home.gna.org/funk/), but also, if licences allow it, plan9,
minix3, coyotos, l4 and so on.

I do not have ebuilds for any of them but could help make some if people
agree that it could be useful.

Regards,
Alexandre

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Tomasz Mloduchowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 13:44:52 +0100, sanchan wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi all, I'm working on TinyOS related ebuilds (Bug #78908) and since 
>>actually there are 20 ebuilds in my overlay may be worth proposing a 
>>dev-tos category.
>>It will take a few weeks in order to have all the ebuilds updated for the 
>>new release of tinyos, have them reviewed by peer an committed to the tree, 
>>but it's a lot easier to make a category early rather than moving stuff.
> 
> 
> I don't know TinyOS, but I assume it is a "toy OS", like minix and many others.
> What about a dev-toyos category? It could be great to have some other
> toy OS, including the one I have been working on (funk, see
> http://home.gna.org/funk/), but also, if licences allow it, plan9,
> minix3, coyotos, l4 and so on.
> 
> I do not have ebuilds for any of them but could help make some if people
> agree that it could be useful.
> 
> Regards,
> Alexandre
Actually, TinyOS is a good operating system for small embedded design..
having the ebuilds somewhere in portage could be a good idea.. maybe
dev-alternateos ? qnx could also go in there..

Best regards,
Tomasz

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[sanchan]

Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> I don't know TinyOS, but I assume it is a "toy OS", like minix and many others.
> What about a dev-toyos category? It could be great to have some other
> toy OS, including the one I have been working on (funk, see
> http://home.gna.org/funk/), but also, if licences allow it, plan9,
> minix3, coyotos, l4 and so on.
> 
> I do not have ebuilds for any of them but could help make some if people
> agree that it could be useful.

from: http://tinyos.net/special/mission

TinyOS is an open-source operating system designed for wireless embedded sensor
networks. It features a component-based architecture which enables rapid
innovation and implementation while minimizing code size as required by the
severe memory constraints inherent in sensor networks. TinyOS's component
library  includes network protocols, distributed services, sensor drivers, and
data acquisition tools – all of which can be used as-is or be further refined
for a custom application. TinyOS's event-driven execution model enables
fine-grained power management yet allows the scheduling flexibility made
necessary by the unpredictable nature of wireless communication and physical
world interfaces.

TinyOS has been ported to over a dozen platforms and numerous sensor boards. A
wide community uses it in simulation to develop and test various algorithms and
protocols. New releases see over 10,000 downloads. Over 500 research groups and
companies are using TinyOS on the Berkeley/Crossbow Motes. Numerous groups are
actively contributing code to the sourceforge site and working together to
establish standard, interoperable network services built from a base of direct
experience and honed through competitive analysis in an open environment.

-- 
Sandro (Sanchan)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

sanchan wrote:
| Alexandre Buisse wrote:
|
|>I don't know TinyOS, but I assume it is a "toy OS", like minix and
many others.
|>What about a dev-toyos category? It could be great to have some other
|>toy OS, including the one I have been working on (funk, see
|>http://home.gna.org/funk/), but also, if licences allow it, plan9,
|>minix3, coyotos, l4 and so on.
|>
|>I do not have ebuilds for any of them but could help make some if people
|>agree that it could be useful.
|
|
| from: http://tinyos.net/special/mission
|
| TinyOS is an open-source operating system designed for wireless
embedded sensor
| networks.

Sounds like it might fit into dev-embedded.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDyURnXVaO67S1rtsRAt4hAJ9vWFf1li2sHIliVCjOT21uNc1NfACfXLSR
OcFQQ4Prg8Noq2nWehUNLpU=
=3oKm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:32:49 +0100 sanchan <sanchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
| Hi all, I'm working on TinyOS related ebuilds (Bug #78908) and since
| actually there are 20 ebuilds in my overlay may be worth proposing a
| dev-tos category. It will take a few weeks in order to have all the
| ebuilds updated for the new release of tinyos, have them reviewed by
| peer an committed to the tree, but it's a lot easier to make a
| category early rather than moving stuff.

Any reason for dev- rather than sys-? I believe we're going with
sys-fbsd...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (King of all Londinium)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[sanchan]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Any reason for dev- rather than sys-? I believe we're going with
> sys-fbsd...

The only reason is that until yesterday TinyOS was targeted for dev-embedded.
TinyOS is a small operating system for embedded sensors, it's very different
from linux or fbsd.
-- 
Sandro (Sanchan)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 14 January 2006 08:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:32:49 +0100 sanchan <sanchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | Hi all, I'm working on TinyOS related ebuilds (Bug #78908) and since
> | actually there are 20 ebuilds in my overlay may be worth proposing a
> | dev-tos category. It will take a few weeks in order to have all the
> | ebuilds updated for the new release of tinyos, have them reviewed by
> | peer an committed to the tree, but it's a lot easier to make a
> | category early rather than moving stuff.
>
> Any reason for dev- rather than sys-? I believe we're going with
> sys-fbsd...

yes, but fbsd is a self hosting env, tinyos is not

i wish there was a way we could convey the embedded aspect (embed-tos ?), but 
dev-tos works for me
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| yes, but fbsd is a self hosting env, tinyos is not
|
| i wish there was a way we could convey the embedded aspect (embed-tos
?), but
| dev-tos works for me

Why stuck on "tos" -- Just spend the other 3 letters and make it tinyos
at least, so people can figure out what it actually is.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDyUXUXVaO67S1rtsRAoW4AKC2InuVIDk5/VPRuavRbXORIdQuyQCfUG8F
7ZYdb3T9bg2AJzvZG6pOf6Q=
=By+g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 14 January 2006 13:41, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | yes, but fbsd is a self hosting env, tinyos is not
> |
> | i wish there was a way we could convey the embedded aspect (embed-tos
>
> ?), but
>
> | dev-tos works for me
>
> Why stuck on "tos" -- Just spend the other 3 letters and make it tinyos
> at least, so people can figure out what it actually is.

indeed, it'd still be smaller than dev-embedded :)
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RFC - new category dev-tinyos [was: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos]

[sanchan]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 13:41, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Why stuck on "tos" -- Just spend the other 3 letters and make it tinyos
>> at least, so people can figure out what it actually is.
> 
> indeed, it'd still be smaller than dev-embedded :)
> -mike

Actually proposed name for the category:

dev-tos: original proposed name

dev-tinyos: better than dev-tos, and still shorter than dev-embedded ;-)

dev-embedded: leave the 20 ebuilds in dev-embedded or try to fit them in other
existing categories (maybe some packages can be moved to

sys-tos or sys-tinyos: in order to go with sys-fbsd

dev-toyos or dev-alternateos: in order to allow minix and co. to be placed here.

Personally I prefer to keep TinyOS related ebuild in the same category. Having
tossim and tinyviz (the emulator) in app-emulation, and all the sub library
needed by tinyviz in dev-java may be confusing for tinyos users.
But it can be done.
TinyOS tarball includes lots of apps. Shipping them splitted in a lot of ebuilds
may be proibitive without a dedicated category. But I can choose to ship them in
a single ebuild, move the ebuilds into existing categories and get rid of
dev-tinyos.
-- 
Sandro (Sanchan)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - new category dev-tos

[Luca Barbato]

sanchan wrote:
> Hi all, I'm working on TinyOS related ebuilds (Bug #78908) and since 
> actually there are 20 ebuilds in my overlay may be worth proposing a 
> dev-tos category.
> It will take a few weeks in order to have all the ebuilds updated for 
> the new release of tinyos, have them reviewed by peer an committed to 
> the tree, but it's a lot easier to make a category early rather than 
> moving stuff.

Isn't it too specific? I'd rather spread them in the current categories.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Developer		Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - new category dev-tos

[R Hill]

Luca Barbato wrote:
> sanchan wrote:
>> Hi all, I'm working on TinyOS related ebuilds (Bug #78908) and since
>> actually there are 20 ebuilds in my overlay may be worth proposing a
>> dev-tos category.
>> It will take a few weeks in order to have all the ebuilds updated for
>> the new release of tinyos, have them reviewed by peer an committed to
>> the tree, but it's a lot easier to make a category early rather than
>> moving stuff.
> 
> Isn't it too specific? I'd rather spread them in the current categories.

Considering we have _two_ separate categories for ~30 rox ebuilds, i think
dev-tinyos category is justifiable.  Spreading out two dozen packages that
aren't useful for anything outside of TinyOS complicates things by making it
inconvenient for devs to maintain and users to find.

Just my two cents.

--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - new category dev-tos

[sanchan]

R Hill wrote:

> Considering we have _two_ separate categories for ~30 rox ebuilds, i think
> dev-tinyos category is justifiable.  Spreading out two dozen packages that
> aren't useful for anything outside of TinyOS complicates things by making it
> inconvenient for devs to maintain and users to find.

And it is easier to add in rsync_exclude if you don't want it...
But it seems that there is no much consensus for the new category.
Tomorrow I've planned the final tests on tos-1.1.15 and nesc-1.2.1 that will be
added to dev-embedded if today nobody else vote for dev-tinyos.
-- 
Sandro (Sanchan)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - new category dev-tos

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 497 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:32:20AM +0100, sanchan wrote:
> And it is easier to add in rsync_exclude if you don't want it...
> But it seems that there is no much consensus for the new category.
> Tomorrow I've planned the final tests on tos-1.1.15 and nesc-1.2.1 that will be
> added to dev-embedded if today nobody else vote for dev-tinyos.

You have my vote for a seperate category...

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - new category dev-tos

[R Hill]

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:32:20AM +0100, sanchan wrote:
>> And it is easier to add in rsync_exclude if you don't want it...
>> But it seems that there is no much consensus for the new category.
>> Tomorrow I've planned the final tests on tos-1.1.15 and nesc-1.2.1 that will be
>> added to dev-embedded if today nobody else vote for dev-tinyos.
> 
> You have my vote for a seperate category...
> 
> ./Brix

+1

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - new category dev-tos

[sanchan]

The new category dev-tinyos is now in portage. If somebody is interested in
having all the ebuilds related to TinyOS in portage, please feel free to follow
bug# 78908 and its bloker bugs.
Actually I'm focusing on bug #98662 and #101663, the ebuilds for these 2 bugs
doesn't satisfy me, any idea on how to manage these 2 ebuilds is welcome.
-- 
Sandro (Sanchan)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list