Going back a waaaaayyys...
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Wed Mar 24 13:38:04 -0400 2010: > >> i'm not surprised. which is why I reiterate my suggestion that we >> should merely duplicate the user-level interface (and only the bits >> we actually care about), and thus avoid extra baggage. > > But why reinvent the wheel? The wheel is already round and mostly > works. Because "fully works" is better than "mostly works" > With some tweaks, that as you say, should be acceptable > upstream since they wouldn't harm the original environment, it'd be > perfectly round for us too. Thanks to Dago's writeups on the wiki spaces, I now have a better understanding of how "alternatives" works. And I now also understand Dagobert's reticence on this issue... sadly, I dont think that this would be fixable in the redhat implementation without majorly reengineering the way it currently works. > Anyway. Since I'm not going to do the work in either scenario, I'll > be quiet now. Well, I am happy to say that this week, I found both my old spirit of development, and time to indulge it, for a while! I have now written a mostly complete, from scratch implementation of "alternatives" (in ksh of course:) It currently stands at 230 lines. 52 of those are comments. "Simpler is Better". I anticipate "version 1.0" to be somewhere below 300 lines. Readable, functional, and fully compatible with ALL our needs, rather than only "mostly". If I dont produce a test version for public consumption by tuesday, someone please give me a nudge :) _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
