(replying to both mails) On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie> wrote: > (but then again, does there exist a non-hostile fork?)
Management-wise, I'm convinced it indeed doesn't exist. It takes some serious motivation to spend time to create a fork and gather a team behind it, which should always come from some political disagreement. I see the large team which formed behing libusbx as the proof that there is some serious disagreement. Though, I believe it is wrong to bring hostility to technical level (ie, soname choice). On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie> wrote: > OK, on that subject My intent in my mails is centered on that subject, actually. Sorry if it wasn't clear. > I'd have libusbx everywhere, starting with soname, header > name, directory names, as well as API prefixes. I think this would be The Right Way (tm). Sadly, I'm not comfident enough in my C skills to offer my time to write a compatibility layer so libusbx can be a drop-in replacement while using a separate soname. I believe I would do a terrible job (naive, so repetitive and a pain to maintain) and would probably fail to deliver it early enough to be of any use. Regards, -- Vincent Pelletier ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
