Progress on Nova?

beniro · 2003-06-04 02:56:20

Not prossure anyone, but...how is Nova coming along?

Is there a page somewhere that I've missed or an approximate release date or something, somewhere? I'm just having a hard time waiting...

What goals are set for the .5 release? Any info would greatly relax my snapping nerves.

Thanks and keep up the good work. I'll wait as long as it takes and, of course, I know that the Arch team will work until it's done, and won't release it sooner.

sarah31 · 2003-06-04 04:21:42

well the plan was to have it out very soon but i think that has changed a bit because we would like to have the next stable 2.4 kernel (2.4.21 or is it 2.4.22). One of the reasons for this is that i don't think it is currently possible to build the 2.4.20 kernel with the new gcc 3.3 without ALOT of patching.

as for other plans......i dunno i just work here

nifan · 2003-06-04 10:05:49

there's still much todo until Nova is realeased i believe. the new gcc 3.3 brought lots off headache to everyone who compiles his owns programs. I believe its adviseble to only release Nova when all the main errors go away.

but still you can have Nova, just install arch 0.4 and update

rufius · 2003-06-04 13:37:06

These headaches are true lol. But I figure it'll all be better once Nova is released. Either way I'm still very pleased with Dragon.

nifan · 2003-06-04 15:00:28

i have several problems with several programs with gcc 3.3...
dont know who's the fault but hope when Nova get's out all this problems go away!

P.S. - AL rox

sarah31 · 2003-06-04 15:40:12

it is plain and simple bad code at fault. the GCC releases are getting stricter and stricter to the ANSI standard. IF you note the errors when trying to compile you will realize that it is indeed in the fault of the code.

Despite the "headaches" GCC 3.3 is a very good thing. now when i am able to do so i will have an easier time ridding the world of bad code:) either that or programmers will just move to a lazier language like perl which is much more forgiving of errors.

beniro · 2003-06-04 18:53:14

At least now I have a bit of an idea about when to start getting really excited. For the moment, I need to just relax a little.

Nova sounds great. Arch with yet more improvements and packages? Count me in!

Keep it up!

Arielext · 2003-06-04 20:47:58

The beaty of the [current] release is that you don't need to do anything, just keep your system up to date with pacman and abs and the only notable thing that changes is the name when you log in

My Archlinux was installed when it hit 0.2 since then I never installed a newer version of Arch, but still my machine is up to date!

eat that redhat

apeiro · 2003-06-04 23:19:12

Arielext is right... With Arch's package update system, new releases really only benefit new users and users who do not have enough bandwidth to always be running pacman -Syu.

They also serve as a sign of external activity which draws more users to the distro.

beniro · 2003-06-04 23:44:48

Right now, I don't even have computer at home with which to use Arch on...my excitement about the new release is mainly for the very reason you mentioned, Apeiro: I'm a fan of the distro and love to see it move forward. I think Arch is starting to get to the point where it can and will reach a much wider audience.

I think Nova will be a huge step forward in that sense.

sarah31 · 2003-06-06 15:21:16

mattt wrote:

Looking back, was it really a good move for Arch to move to gcc 3.3 so soon after being released? Are the benefits of it so tremendous that all the other headaches were worth dealing with?
That's an honest question -- I know very little about gcc and have no idea what 3.3 even brought to the table.
Thanks!

well the problems from what i have been able to gathe are not problem with gcc but problems with the code of tha applications it is trying to compile. each successive release of gcc 3.x has become more and more strict to the ANSI standard.

the onus now rests on coders to create clean code or move over to a "lazier" language such as perl which has no enforced standard. In otherwards, unlike wysiwyg html editors and today's browsers, C coders are being force to comply with set standards to allow for maximum acceptance of their product.

sarah31 · 2003-06-06 20:28:31

Well to be honest it has not caused me, personally too many headaches.

as for the quick move....well 3.3 is stble so there is no real reason to wait. the changes were, all and all, not that major. I have only had a few compile issues and most of those were to do with just plain old bad code errors such as missing headers or "extra" syntax (ie , ; and so forth)

Moritz · 2003-06-11 15:46:28

From Marcelo Tosatti

Hi,
Here goes -rc8. If nothing really bad happens in 2 days, this becomes final.
Summary of changes from v2.4.21-rc7 to v2.4.21-rc8

So we could have hope for nova 8)

Xentac · 2003-06-11 17:00:44

Yeah... but there's still the installer piece...

apeiro · 2003-06-11 17:51:09

I think it would be best to release Nova without the new installer... It's been a good long time since we released and there have been gobs of package updates and little fixes since then.

Thoughts?

Xentac · 2003-06-11 18:49:56

Sounds good to me... and it gives me more time to plan and implement the installer anyway

deepfreeze · 2003-06-11 19:22:50

Nova is still a pre-1.0 release anyway, so nobody is expecting it to have all the features of a post-1.0 release, and you can hold of on the installer to 0.6 (or is there going to be a jump from 0.5 to 1.0?). I think it would be better for the perception of the distro and community to release Nova rather than wait for everything to be perfect.

Just (yet) another opinion...

Moritz · 2003-06-11 20:29:31

I think it would be better to release 5.5 instead of waiting! A very stable 0.5 is more important than a new installer!

BTW: Where is the problem? Could I help?

Arch Linux

#1 2003-06-04 02:56:20

Progress on Nova?

#2 2003-06-04 04:21:42

Re: Progress on Nova?

#3 2003-06-04 10:05:49

Re: Progress on Nova?

#4 2003-06-04 13:37:06

Re: Progress on Nova?

#5 2003-06-04 15:00:28

Re: Progress on Nova?

#6 2003-06-04 15:40:12

Re: Progress on Nova?

#7 2003-06-04 18:53:14

Re: Progress on Nova?

#8 2003-06-04 20:47:58

Re: Progress on Nova?

#9 2003-06-04 23:19:12

Re: Progress on Nova?

#10 2003-06-04 23:44:48

Re: Progress on Nova?

#11 2003-06-06 15:21:16

Re: Progress on Nova?

#12 2003-06-06 20:28:31

Re: Progress on Nova?

#13 2003-06-11 15:46:28

Re: Progress on Nova?

#14 2003-06-11 17:00:44

Re: Progress on Nova?

#15 2003-06-11 17:51:09

Re: Progress on Nova?

#16 2003-06-11 18:49:56

Re: Progress on Nova?

#17 2003-06-11 19:22:50

Re: Progress on Nova?

#18 2003-06-11 20:29:31

Re: Progress on Nova?

Board footer