i'm saying that if gypsy doesn't break existing stuff, then i have no problems with it.
i'll probably never use gypsy because it doesn't do anything for me that gpsd can't already do, and it makes me install more software that i don't need. but if it solves a problem for somebody else, great. CK On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > * Ian Darwin wrote: >> >> >> Gypsy was designed to fix "the numerous design flaws found in GPSD". >> >> These are compiled at http://gypsy.freedesktop.org/why-not-gpsd.html. >> > >> > So how does this compare to gpsd for real applications? I am asking >> > since the main gpsd developer is also an OpenBSD developer, and maybe >> > there are ways to fix the problems in gpsd? >> > >> > Oh, and I find this rude. >> >> DBUS is more crap I don't need or want on my machines, the regular >> gpsd serves my needs very well. I'm sure I could write a >> "why-not-dbus-gypsy.html" page, but I can't be arsed. I'm surprised >> that I'm even taking the time to reply to this. >> >> If it works, let them co-exist. GPSD does have some kind of DBUS >> support... but I have no use for it so I can't say how well it works. > > What are you saying? I want to understand this very clearly. > > Are you two saying no to a new package? Or what is this fight > about? > > Or do the little words twist your panties? > -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
