archaic at indy.rr.com
Sat Jan 3 08:54:44 PST 2004
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:35:16AM -0500, Robert Day wrote:
> I think it will be generally agreed upon that the VERY vast majority
> of our target audience will have some sort of high-speed, always-on
I wouldn't be so presumptuous. What basis of proof do you have for that
> We should not say "let's find a way to patch foo-2.4 to make it work
> just like bar-1.6.
First of all, most differences between HJL and FSF do get backported
anyway. They really aren't different projects. They are the same project
at 2 different levels functionality. FSF takes the slow road and
incorporates much of HJL after HJL has been extensively tested.
Again, though, on the generic, it would be wise to default to keeping
the same packages _unless_ they just can't do what we need them to. We
shouldn't be gung-ho to change packages just because of personal
preference. Like I said before, it's not just a matter of saying "package
X is great, let's use it". That just gets everyone hollering for their
favorite packages. We need cohesion as far as the book goes. Some
packages will undoubtedly be changed. Some will be patched. Haste is the
only thing I caution.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which grant[s] a right to Congress of expending, on objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents.
- James Madison, 1794
More information about the hlfs-dev