Just a comment about the previous message I sent.
It has been bothering me that the outline of how to arrange
software is getting more and more complicated. On reflection
I think the problem is that I am trying to describe three separate
requirements with one outline.
The three requirements are:
1) Provide a method for distributed development such that software resides
at the site responsible for maintaining that software.
2) Provide a method such that 1) software subject to license agreements is
available via pasword protected ftp and WWW, and 2) free software is
available via anonymous ftp and WWW.
3) Provide WWW pages that allow users to easily obtain and build any EPICS
software component they desire.
Users and even developers at other sites dont care about 1) as long as
2) ands 3) meet their needs. Thus, although 1) is extremely important,
it should not visible to 3). If a particular site (e.g. APS) has multiple
groups or divisions responsible for various conponents of epics, this
should not be visible to 2).
Since we do want each site to maintain their own password protected and/or
anonymous ftp sites, users cant be sheltered completely from 1) if they use
ftp itself. If however they use WWW they can be sheltered.
The outline I gave last Friday (Dec 15) was appropriate for 1) and thus is
not appropriate for 2) or 3).
Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
RE: ATTN Platform Developers Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: ATTN Platform Developers watson
- Index:
1994
<1995>
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: ATTN Platform Developers watson
- Next:
Labview clients for EPICS Chris Timossi
- Index:
1994
<1995>
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|