Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: AXIOM server number is undefined

[Mike Dewar]

Tim,

I think you're confusing what makes sense in a development environment
with what makes sense for a product.  When Axiom was still a product we
had a lot of sites (mainly Universities) maintaining multiple versions
of the product on a shared fileserver.  Its much easier to maintain a
system if multiple copies of files are eliminated.

These days of course disk space isn't an issue and if you're planning to
deliver the system via CVS its much less likely that people will have
multiple, compatible systems. Its not a big deal really.

Cheers, Mike.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:04:40AM -0400, Tim Daly wrote:
> > > The "using local database" messages are due to the fact
> > > that I've moved where the databases are loaded from.
> > > By default they used to be loaded from the mnt/algebra
> > > subdirectory (since there was no other). Nag changed it
> > > so they were loaded from a "share" subdirectory. I'm in
> > > the process of changing it back. This should work:
> > As a matter of interest, why do you want the databases to live under
> > mnt?  I realise that if you aren't using CCL, where all the libraries
> > and interpreter code are shared across platforms, there is less obvious
> > justification for share but it still seems nicer to only have one set of
> > databases when you have multiple versions installed on a shared
> > filesystem.
> 
> The problem with share is that the databases might not be common.
> In the IBM days I found that some algebra files, for instance, would
> not build on some common lisps so the makefiles would exclude the
> data from the databases. Database build is a dynamic step that happens
> after the algebra build and was "system dependent, ship system" so it
> ends up in mnt. There are "system independent, ship system" files but
> they also ended up in mnt due to the "ship system" nature. I suppose
> there could be a share subdirectory for this category I just haven't
> given it any design thought. Basically I'm just following the old ruts.
> 
> The other problem with share, which is historically uninteresting at
> this point, is that mnt was NFS mounted from multiple systems. Once
> the build completes all that is left on the target system is mnt so
> share would have to be a subdirectory of mnt. I don't expect to use
> NFS any time soon so it's a "don't care" issue. Again, it's because
> I'm following ruts in the road rather than some deep design.
> 
> Tim
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________