> > > > So how does this compare to gpsd for real applications? I am asking > > > > since the main gpsd developer is also an OpenBSD developer, and maybe > > > > there are ways to fix the problems in gpsd? > > > > > > > > Oh, and I find this rude. > > > > > > DBUS is more crap I don't need or want on my machines, the regular > > > gpsd serves my needs very well. I'm sure I could write a > > > "why-not-dbus-gypsy.html" page, but I can't be arsed. I'm surprised > > > that I'm even taking the time to reply to this. > > > > > > If it works, let them co-exist. GPSD does have some kind of DBUS > > > support... but I have no use for it so I can't say how well it works. > > > > What are you saying? I want to understand this very clearly. > > > > Are you two saying no to a new package? Or what is this fight > > about? > > I can only speak for myself: I am in no way objecting to this to > go in. I was only commenting. Users should make the choice which > GPS package they use, not us, not me.
Then why does it make a difference if you think it is rude? Can you not see that adds zero value, except that it might convince people working on ports that they should not continue because someone might think it is 'rude'? > Nevertheless I think it is ok to post comments. Sure, talk all you want. But so can the authors of that original source. At least they were detailed in their explanation.
