Hi Jeremy, On 12/05/12 16:02, Jeremy Morton wrote: > 1) You come across to me as very aggressive and argumentative, not > really wanting to come to solutions with people. You probably don't > intend it, but maybe you should look at changing your tone of voice > because that's how you sound.
After Gunar has posted that he wanted to stop the Debian maintainership nobody has steped forward for a long time, while we were actively looking for volunteers. Given we are distribution independent webserver, we must document a proper way to compile and install Cherokee. I think (even for Debian) we meet these criteria. Please do reply if you disagree with what I wrote here, possibly with an intermediate solution I oversaw. Regarding tone-of-voice, I think the best reference is this: <http://alvinng.xanga.com/416327188/item/> My intention is not to come across as aggressive, my intention is to be as clear (and transparent) as possible and show my complete reasoning. > 2) You're saying that turning 9 (rather technical) steps into 1 step is > "hilarious"ly trivial. But surely Cherokee is all about making things > easier, that's why there's a user-friendly admin interface. Why does > this philosophy suddenly disappear when it comes to installing Cherokee? An emerge cherokee, an apt-get install cherokee, a yum install cherokee it is indeed one line. But given virtually any open source package is compiled using a standard autoconf/automake pattern this is something that any user of open source tools will know - or is provided in a readme. Obviously we can do it better, sure. But our primary opposition is: why should an upstream project provide distribution specific packages? Take a peak at <http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi#apache24> the only binaries you see there are Netware and Win32. What is your suggestion here? Stefan _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
