Gregg L. Smith wrote: > Original Message ----------------------- >> Finally, I have yet to see any feedback on the pcre mandatory >> dependency issue. Comments? > > Personally, I thought your Monopoly metaphor was quite on target. > > libz, openssl, lua = batteries not included > apr, apu, pcre = drive train not included. > >> And what is passing for an excuse for a local PCRE install >> these days probably doesn't look like 7.8 or later, with >> various fixes we are vulnerable to. > > This does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. As a user, is the pcre > 8.0 I've built going to expose me to risks that your maintained 7.8 does not? > If yes, then I'd prefer your maintained one. After all, who knows better than > you what will interact with your code to produce problems. Regardless of > merit, who will ultimately get blamed in the end? Could your reputation be > tarnished? Can you completely divorce yourself from something your software > requires to run?
I'm referring to pre v7 chaos. And mostly not referring to modern linux distros. > The 'Jump Ship' factor; > > To me, and I'm probably wrong, it sounds like Mr. Felt's comment was an > ultimatum of sorts as 'indefinitely' is a pretty strong word. With this issue > you have created a deal with it or jump ship ultimatum which could very well > leave some people scrambling to get off. Each person is going to inevitably > weigh the pain factor, the pain of dealing with it over the pain of jumping > ship. I consider myself lucky that my second attempt to deal with it was > successful, or so it seems so far anyway, but I never know from day to day. Agreed that ease-of-adoption is going to be the usual, first barrier to anyone jumping aboard 2.4 from 2.2, 2.0, or even still from 1.3. > I may be wrong but as an outsider looking in, I see you wanting to stop > maintaining/including the gear box and are instead spending the time on > adding more optional gadgets to choose from (some of the third party modules > you've taken over). In the end, I'd prefer having a reverse gear over the > rear window defogger. You are also loosing all control of a required piece of > equipment, this has got to make some of you at least cringe a little. I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are saying here. Drop the gearbox and let them assemble their own transmission? Or distribute a most modern transmission that the user can ignore or swap out if they want to install their own? > Sorry for the outburst, but you opened the door for, and I've said what I've > wanted to for some time now, thanks for listening. Corrections and daggers > welcomed. No problems, thanks for chiming in.
