On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 17:17:21 +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote: > I know, my point is, that there are specific cases, where an 'error' is too > widespread to try to fix everything and it might make more sense to just stop > enforcing our way and do what everybody else does. On the other hand, I'm > quite attached to PLD being for example FHS-strict.
Our policy seems to be the winning one - not only other distros try harder to keep standards, app developers too. Have you ever faced rejecting some bashizm patch? World wants to be standarized, it's popular. > second upgrade. I really do think that such integration nightmares as OO or, > dunno, big java apps (especially considering java has it's own standards for > allmost everything and you don't gain anything by recompiling bytecode) > aren't worth trying to force our ways onto and it makes more sense to make > more of an effort to accommodate the stuff that's released by upstream. It's > a separate discussion though. I agree. Because in this case we are 'dumb monkeys' trying to recompile everything. However it's not /bin/sh case. > At a certain complexity level it might not just be possible/worth it, to do > it > The Right Way. Fixing bashizm is not complex. After all one can change just bang line. I'm far from making Oracle FHS-compliant. >> Doesn't our patches go upstream? If they are rejected it usualy means, >> that authors are really dumb or don't give a shit. Either way we do The >> Right Thing. > > A) Authors often have different goals then distributions, especially Shell scripts are usually beyond any goals, they exist just because they are handy. > non-mainstream ones, like PLD. So I'd guess more often then not, they'd be > saying we're the idiots. Some examples of rejecting bashizm patch? > B) We can't save the world. Having more and more > pld-specific patches makes it harder to maintain PLD so in specific cases it > might make more sense to just give up and do what everybody else does. FHS is much more complex than bash/pdksh issues, as well as handling compressed %doc in internal help browsers. > I'm in favor of PLD being a compromise between being a geek's dream and > something that's actually usable without having to patch your way trough > every app. There's only ca. 30 bash related patches in SOURCES. It's not every app. -- Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en