On Thursday, 30 March 2006, at 13:46:34 (+1000), David Seikel wrote: > Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
You only say that because you are not a packager. > I have not seen any real support issues raised by packagers, only > this theoretical discussion about possible problems. Only because I fixed it myself. > Instead of bitching about it, why doesn't someone with better > autofoo skills than me A) test to make sure there is a real packager > problem, B) fix that problem, while keeping autodetect.sh a part of > install for ordinary users, and make us all happy? I already did that. Failure of the script will no longer break the build. > The script solves a nasty problem for our users, simply telling them > to fix that problem by hand is not what anyone should do. Perhaps not, but your solution is also sub-par. Clearly both solutions are incorrect, so rather than bickering back and forth about whose sucks more, let's focus on finding the third solution that will work for everyone. Has anyone thought about auto-detecting things at runtime rather than build time? Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- G: "If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?" EB: "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area." ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
