> > I'll stop expecting somebody to thank us for this port. > Stick with what you *feel* is best.
If you do work expecting people to fall all over themselves thanking you for it, you might want to consider another profession. Software development isn't often that way, and even less often in open-source communities. Being happy if anybody even pays attention to you is all I can suggest. I'll clarify what I objected to in the original post. These two statements: > Conary is way superior to IPS. > It is, however, of highest importance to us, to establish conary[0] as > SVR4-pkgadd's successor, rather than IPS which is clearly limited in > comparision to conary. tell us nothing about Conary, but certainly strive to build it up at the expense of another project which is already sponsored by this community. That's not appropriate, in my view. You're welcome to like Conary, work on it, propose a project for sponsorship, whatever, but you'll be much more likely to get support from me if you actually sell me on what Conary can do, not just make assertions of comparison to something else without facts to support the assertions. Finally, this statement: > You have never compared IPS and conary, have you? Assuming that you and I would look at any piece of software and come to the same conclusions is a classic error in discourse, and compounds your difficulties in attempting to persuade me, because your statement above is an arrogant way of telling me I'm not as smart as you (whether that happens to be true or not, you're certainly not opening my mind to your point of view). The attributes I value, and the requirements I bring to the table, are likely quite different from yours. That's why your statements are value judgments, not facts. For the record, I have looked at Conary. Compared to IPS, or any other packaging system, it's different, to be sure. It has some interesting attributes. It also has some things I don't value. Dave
