At 11:19 Uhr -0500 11.12.2002, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, first off this message may come off like criticism and I dont mean
that in any way. I really appeciate what you guys are doing for OS-X. I am, however, confused about why you go about it in the way you do. Why don't you just add your portability code to the true development
tree of the projects you port? This is the way most ports are done. It helps keep everything a little more organized having one main tree,
and also makes distribution much more widespread and easy. For
example, there are a number of places I can download the text editor
JED from, and I can simply untar it and build it on a large number of
different platforms. There is no confusion about which "JED" I am
downloading. With FINK, you are adding the portability to the code,
but on a totally different development tree. This makes for a very
confusing distribution method, and requires people to use your package
manager. Dont you think it would be easier for everyone if you just
submitted your changes to the main development tree of each project? Not only that, but it is an inherently retro-active method, where a new
OS-X'ed version of a package will always come out a little later than
the new version intended for all other platforms. You will need to
wait for that version to come out in order to "Fink" it. Anyways I was just curious as to why you picked this method.
--
-----------------------------------------------
Max Horn
Software Developer
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel
http://hpc.devchannel.org/
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
