[clc-devel] clc ports and crux ppc

ncrfgs ncrfgs at tin.it
Wed Jul 21 19:33:40 UTC 2004


On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
> I know them as well, and judging from their past presence in the mailing
> list and IRC, it seems to me that they have yet to integrate better.
> There were some discussions about improvements they'd like to see, but I
> have never seen them actually implementing one of them (to have a
> technical instead of a political discussion) or accepting one of Per's
> or CLC's decisions. 

Just because we sometimes disagree with Per's point of view this doesn't 
mean we don't like it at all.
If we are Crux users and spend our time porting it to another 
architecture there is "some kind" of reason, don't you think? =)
And this reason is that we like it and we agree on most Per's opinions, 
although we disagree on few other ones.

Furthermore it doesn't seem to me that having different points of view 
is a disadvantage.
If there wasn't different points of view there would be no GNU, there 
would be no Linux, there would be no Free Software and maybe you would 
still be using a proprietary OS from Redmond. =)


> but I
> have never seen them actually implementing one of them

This is because we feel a part of the Crux community and we think that 
decisions should be taken all together when possible. Implementing some 
kind of changes to important parts of a distribution such as the package 
management system on our own would just result in getting more and more 
away.
It was intended as Crux port after all.


> The more - as I already tried to point out in [1] - the tone of
> communication is on a level which hardly helps to raise my interest in
> their problems [not sure if this this can be said this way].

I'm sure that sometimes you did find yourself flying off the handle, too.
Didn't you? =) Everyone can get angry, it happens. BTW I'm afraid that 
often we get misunderstood also because english is not our first language 
and what we says sometimes might look rude without intention.

It isn't yours, too, we know this. But what can I say? Maybe you're better 
than us at speaking it. =)


> Sometimes
> it almost seems to me that they are not interested in CLC (as a project)
> itself, but just having our ports.

If it was so we would simply add the clc.cvsup to /etc/ports/ and we 
wouldn't have asked to join and we wouldn't, for example, have reported 
any bug to the tracker.
If we'd like to become part of CLC it's because we think it's a great 
project and we would be glad to contribute to it.


> I'm obviously not speaking for the CLC project; 
> personally, I'm more
> than happy to have non-x86 ports at CLC (even though I don't believe in
> a CVS based solution ;-)), but at the current point in time I don't
> think giulivo or "ncrfgs" are good matches for our team.

I hope other members don't think the same way. =)


Fergus "NeCRoFaGuS" Incoronato
-- 
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. 
``Don't bother us with politics,'' respond those who don't 
want to learn.

 -- Richard M. Stallman
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.crux.nu/pipermail/crux-devel/attachments/20040721/9992d6dc/attachment.asc>


More information about the crux-devel mailing list