Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Phil, > > Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail: >> Added: csw/mgar/pkg/alternatives/trunk/README >> =================================================================== >> --- csw/mgar/pkg/alternatives/trunk/README >> (rev 0) >> +++ csw/mgar/pkg/alternatives/trunk/README 2010-10-02 17:57:09 >> UTC (rev 11132) >> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ >> +A quickie readme for the future, about this "alternatives" >> implementation: >> + >> +Phil decided that a from-scratch, CSW-custom implementation was >> needed, >> +because the debian one was hugely bloated, and the redhat smaller >> one, >> +did not play nicely with NFS-shared /opt/csw >> +So pleaes dont go getting ideas that we can migrated back to >> redhat,etc >> +in the future! :) we tried, and it failed. > > Ähhhh, what? At least I cannot remember that it failed. You insisted > to rewrite the otherwise fully working RedHat implementation just > because of the NFS-Share /opt/csw issue. And after seeing all these > issues with the rewrite the big question is: is it worth it?
IMO not. People over the pond always said that NIH (Not Invented Here) is an European engineer syndrome. The question is: why reinvent the wheel? I thought that building on existing component was one of the open source software advantages. If the RedHat version is 99% adapted to our distribution (BTW which are the differences with the Debian version?) why not use-it, even if we maintain a set of specific patches? -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
