On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 01:49:20PM +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 05/27/2015 01:09 PM, Henning Schild wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:21:33 +0200
> > Philippe Gerum <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> You mean this?
> >>
> >> http://git.xenomai.org/xenomai-3.git/commit/?id=571ec165ad6a22d3f93f6197b64eb8edba8fbee4
> >
> > Ahh. Yes i meant this. The actual conclusion of the discussion to this
> > patch was to revert the change that introduced the problem and not
> > apply my patch. But for me either way is fine.
> >
>
> Actually, the right approach is to move xeno-config to the base package,
> since it now delivers information about the runtime system as well.
>
> > I also referred to another change i suggested and am still waiting for
> > feedback:
> > https://xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2015-April/034105.html
> >
>
> Looks ok. I'll pick that one unless Gilles pulls the break for any
> debian-specific issue.
No, that is fine by me. As of 2014, I have stopped being a Debian
user (after being one for 17 years), so, I care less and less about
it, I have reached a point where everything about this distribution
seems over-designed, gets in the way on the desktop of someone who
mainly does software development, and paradoxically lead to bad
quality software.
In any case, I am no longer running Debian on my desktop, and
restarting a server to test a Xenomai release is out of the
question, so it would not be easy for me to test Debian packaging.
Since we do not really have a Debian maintainer (and we never did
really have one judging by the work the person that claimed to be
one did), I would be in favor of dropping the ball and removing the
debian directory, unless someone steps up for assuming this role,
but I mean, with a real intention of commitment to the task.
--
Gilles.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
