I starting to add compatibility into tazwok in case of cookutils repos. http://hg.slitaz.org/tazwok/rev/7766fc7a2d10
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Christophe Lincoln <[email protected]>wrote: > > > You threating to use cookutils will reverse everything my and > > GoKhlaYeh have done. It cause me to not sleep for last day. > > Christopher, do you think I sleep well ? We are, and most people here > I guess, passionate people, we love what we do, maybe a bit too much > some time. Christian is correct we want to work for pleasure, in a > happyness ambiance and together. > > > GoKhlaYeh made the new tazwok. I just helped supervised fixes. He > > sald it was better to put his changes into tazwok since tazbb was too > > far gone. It was also to reduce lines of code i think. > > Yes and now we can't work together on Tazwok since it is too > complicated. Look to commits, a part you and Go, no one is able to help > and this is a problem. > > What I found fancy is that YOU said yourself "give me access to > cookutils repo so I can help making it as powerfull as Tazwok but > without the bloat". You implicitly says that Tazwok is bloated!!! > > Now I said no to repo acces because it's too much for me at the moment > and in the current conditions, but I said you can send patch (most > open-source project work like that, ther is a maitainer who mamage > submited patch before inclusion). > > > We also have libtaz for adding common functions and > > @Eric Joseph-Alexandre > > > > Tank can't be some magic box where the packages can be build but > > never debug but on tank. Thats where the problems started. Thats what > > the new tazwok was trying to fix. > > Yes and we (tank maintainers) was aware of that much before you started > work on tazwok. You say "the new tazwok was trying to fix" and it > fails. The cookutils have build deps in mind from the start and will > solve this problem. > > - Christophe > > --- > SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/ > >
