"Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski" <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Peter FELECAN<[email protected]> wrote: >> "Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski" <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Peter FELECAN<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> "Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski" <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Dagobert Michelsen<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Yes: >>>>>> <https://www.ohloh.net/p/GAR/enlistments> >>>>> >>>>> Why don't we have two enlistments (opencsw + gar) and only one project >>>>> at ohloh? It's only one project after all. Just because two >>>>> repositories are used, doesn't make it two projects. Sebastian, what >>>>> do you think about adding the gar repository enlistment to the >>>>> opencsw ohloh project? >>>> >>>> IMHO there are 2 projects, certainly related but 2 in number. >>> >>> GAR might be considered a separate software project, but the builds >>> themselves are code using GAR, they aren't GAR itself. Don't the >>> builds seem belong to the OpenCSW project rather than GAR? >> >> Nope. gar is only one of the mechanisms used to build packages. not all >> builds use gar. all this is an instance of the hammer syndrome. > > Are you seriously saying that the builds, the code that is used to > describe how to build OpenCSW packages, are not part of the OpenCSW > project? If not that, then what code is?
You misread my message: what I'm saying is that gar is not opencsw, although some packages are built with gar. Saying that gar is opencsw is like saying that the autotools, make and other utilities used to build packages are opencsw. I'm speaking not only to warm up the discussion but also to avoid unnecessary reductionism. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
