Hello Eelco, I had the feeling that it becomes hard for us to follow the aterm development. You mentioned about they not accepting your fixes, we have newer aterm versions provoking segfaults around, either in i686 and x86_64, ... And so we are meanwhile stuck to an old aterm library.
As the aterm functionality is not that big, and most of its benefits rely on its efficiency (correct me if I understood wrong), I thought that we could have a "slower-but-reliable" implementation of that. Pierron also got cought by the idea of getting rid of aterm, and being already two, we decided to start on something. At least, making a branch. Pierron has been thinking on all this the weekend, and he even thinks that a new implementation can beat the performance of aterm (I assume, "easily"). I don't know his ideas concrete, maybe whenever he can commit something, we can keep on talking on this. I'm pushing him to get first something api-compatible with aterm, and then we will see what to do next. Do you think we go the wrong way? Thank you, Lluís. 2010/2/14 Eelco Dolstra <[email protected]>: > Llus Batlle wrote: > >> Author: viric >> Date: 2010-02-13 16:27:50 +0000 (Sat, 13 Feb 2010) >> New Revision: 19980 >> >> You can view the changes in this commit at: >> https://svn.nixos.org/viewvc/nix?rev=19980&view=rev >> >> Added: >> nix/branches/noaterm/ >> >> Log: >> Creating a branch to try to get a nix without aterm. > > Can you give some background on this? What is the reason for getting rid of > it? > > -- > Eelco Dolstra | http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~dolstra/ > _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
