Benjamin,
I don't object to a review process but simply an
endless one (where I am treated as novice packager
without the recourse of calling "enough, commit"
when the package meets the basic requirements).
Otherwise, I am held hostage to the whims of whichever
reviewer I pull and am really no longer the maintainer
but the designated info script scribe.
I would be far more impressed with your argument
if any of the core maintainers actually 'ate their
own dogfood' but subjecting themselves to the full
review process on occasion. Not so much fun making
every Tom, Dick and Harry happy at the same time.
It would be one thing if my package built in 5 minutes
but try 1 hour on 8 cores and then the variants. I have
much better things to do at the moment (like helping get
Mach-O LTO fully functional on i386). Or building the
Apple Open Source libgcc (which requires undocumented
nested builds) in order to walk the unwinder in gdb
so I can get gcj java compilation fixed on 10.4/10.5
under gcc 4.5.0. Or testing x86_64 Mach-O LTO in
gcc 4.6 against xplor-nih. Or just helping to keep
the wheels on FSF gcc trunk for darwin.
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
