Alternate Installation Prefixes [Was: Re: Gnome-2.28.0 build notes -- Compatability Symlinks]
dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Oct 24 23:06:56 PDT 2009
On 10/24/2009 11:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I hope you didn't think that I was asking you do do the above. I was saying
> what the design guidelines for the developers should be.
> -- Bruce
I'm not sure I understand your comment above. It is open source
software after all, so you *are* asking me to do the above -- and
rightfully so. :-) That responsibility falls on anyone who chooses to
send in patches to fix upstream issues instead of just filing bug
reports. I neither read direction toward me, nor took any offense to
your comments if that's what you were getting at.
I was just making an observation about Gnome development in general.
The expectation of a shared libexec directory, and a few other
assumptions in there really bug me. I just used my recent GDM patch as
an example of what not to do. I didn't realize my error until you
highlighted it above, and that patch is a shining example of ignoring
the rules above IMO. Incomplete patches can be as troublesome as the
original problem, and in many cases, more so. There are several other
examples in current Gnome.
I do, however, fully intend to follow the guidelines above, and use them
as justification going forward, so that these kinds of issues will be
fixed as *properly* as is possible within the Gnome community (and the
constraints of their nearly impossible 6 month release cycle).
-- DJ Lucas
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
More information about the blfs-dev