> > So basically you are saying the ports developers, who have worked very
> > hard, haven't built things exactly the way you want.
> > Did I get that right?
>
> Nobody apparently cared about it (neither do I really). It's an idea to
> be discussed (or not), not a proposal to have an answer right now.
Shrug.
> > By the way who are you?
>
> A happy fairly long time user.
They keep using. But your mails are going beyond by being critical
of decisions made.
> > Are you proposing to write a diff which handles all the cases, or
> > are you offloading a proposal on other people -- a proposal you came
> > up with in the last hour or so?
>
> A couple of years ago or so, it doesn't matter. It was discussed
> privately and in some forums/lists; and it wasn't me who came up with
> this idea first, certainly.
I discussed world peace in a bar once.
> If would literally take a couple of if's in Makefile for a price of
> A LOT of saved bandwidth and disk space. Of course it would quadruple
> the number of packages.
You don't get to make the decisions, since you aren't doing the work.
> > You can seperate things, and a year down the line that seperation
> > doesn't work anymore. Then it all has to be redone.
>
> This can happen with a build system, then it used CMake, now it uses
> ninja. Or then it relied on GTK+2, now it uses GTK+3. Or Qt. Or Tk.
> Or previous ./configure no longer exist.
Lots of words. No action.
No comments:
Post a Comment