On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 09:58:31AM -0600, Dan White <dwh...@olp.net> wrote:
> I respect your decisions with libev. However, I ask you to consider
> that others on this list of different motivations as users of libev than
> you do as a developer of it.
Sure, but that still doesn't mean they can troll - the list of conditions
I placed are not in any way unreasonable and don't limit anybody who wants
to have a reasonable discussion.
Have you read them? If yes, which one(s) do you disagree with?
> I have stated that it will ease my use of libev to have a pkg-config file
> distributed with it.
Maybe, but you
a) didn't give evidence on why that is, so it is completely irrelevant to
anybody but yourself. Your reasons might not apply to anybody else, or
even exist.
b) based this on statements that are simply untrue. you can deduce
anything from a false premise without loss of fidelity, so no matter how
much a pkg-config variant that does not exist in reality might ease your
use, it is completely irrelevant, because in the real world, we have to
work with the existing pkg-config, not some version you have invented for
the sake of arguing.
Might I remind you that you made multiple sweeping and completely wrong
statements about pkg-config? Why did you do that? Does it really ease your
use of libev, given that the statements you made about it are untrue?
I would say it is much more likely that your ease is completely imagined,
and doesn't hold up to reality, because it is based on wrong beliefs about
how pkg-config works.
> That should be enough to consider its inclusion.
Right, and this is exactly what happened, despite there being no new
arguments compared to the last time.
You are aware that "considering its inclusion" is not the same as
"including it"?
> To refuse to do so is your right, but it places this project clearly
> into Cathedral status.
I wouldn't even know what a "cathedral status" would be, but if you mean
that libev won't blindly attach patches because somebody who doesn't even
know what these patches do wants them without any further reason, then,
yes, libev clearly is such a project.
If you mean that libev doesn't include patches because there more good
reasons not to, than good reasons to, then, yes, libev clearly is such a
project.
If you mean that libev only includes patches on their technical merits and
not because random people want them included, then, yes, libev clearly is
such a project.
You should also note that libev came out as it did precisely because of
these policies. It would certainly be another project without them.
If you really disagree with these rules, then you have all rights to
disagree, but then you fundamentally disagree with how libev is designed
and maintained, and, furthermore, that's fully your problem to keep then.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
libev mailing list
libev@lists.schmorp.de
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
