On Sunday 06 March 2005 12:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Perhaps, the question is, are you interested in attracting > users to gEDA or attracting desktops? It seems to me that if > your serious about attracting desktops, you've got to have > something enticing. In my mind, gEDA is enticing. In this > senario, you don't port. OTOH, are you interested in > attracting users to gEDA and not attracting desktops, you > port. Personally, I belive it is in the best interest of gEDA > to port. Leave the desktop wars to the kernel hackers and the > distro maintainers and worry about our own back yard.
To reopen this (oops)...... Speaking for myself ... When I develop I try to do it in a portable manner. If I had to actually try everything on all platforms, it would take so much time as to kill the project. Therefore, I distribute only source, in the hopes that it will compile on many platforms. If you look at the various Linux and BSD systems, you will see that many of them have ports done by someone other than the original developer. I am not aware of any systems that have binary packages made by the original author. Some of those doing ports read this list. Thanks to these ports, people using particular systems have a trivial way to do an install. This makes these particular systems preferable for running our tools. For Windows ports, someone needs to take responsibility for it. The duties of this person or these people are to make sure it compiles in that environment, prepare source packages in that environment, prepare object packages, and find or provide a distribution site. That someone should really use the target platform, thus have a need to do the port. It should be someone other than the developer of the package, even if the developer of the package uses the target platform. To illustrate the last statement ..... I develop on a Debian system. Someone else (Hamish Moffatt) maintains the Debian port.
