Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@crux.nu> wrote:
Matthias-Christian Ott [2007-10-06 12:26]:
Footprint mismatches occur, because the user has other software installed than the developer who generated the footprint. Configure (autotools) enables additionally features and additionally files are installed. Thus the footprint mismatches. Isolated builds and feature flags (~ USE flags) prevent this situation.
You're talking about how pkgutils6 violetes Per's vision and the CRUX philosophy etc, and yet here you are saying we need a better ports/pkgfile system. It's all backwards!
I think a better ports system does not conflict with the CRUX philosophy.
I do not see why C++ would have been so essential to the spirit of CRUX: there is no precise design or aim behind that choice, and the advantages of C over C++ are, I would say, well known.
Yes, but including standard algorithm source code (lists, binary search trees) conflicts (in my opinion) with the design philosophy of CRUX.
Well, the current CRUX maintainers believe otherwise it seems. And all of us are long time users and contributors, so I believe we do know better about what fits with CRUX' philosophy, and Per's ideas of this distribution than you.
OK, if that is the CRUX philosophy, than the philosophy has to be changed also.
architecture. Why should CRUX restrict their usage to i686?
Because it's the most widespread architecture in use in typical desktop and server systems today.
But what about people that do not have a i686 system, but agree with the CRUX philosophy?
eg I only have i686 boxes, how the hell can I vouch for my ported software if I cannot even test it on x86-64?
The software has been (in the majority of cases) already tested by the original developers, we just package them.
You're wrong.
If you think so, I am probably wrong. Long live the emperor! -- Matthias-Christian Ott