From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 10 1998 - 16:47:21 EST
Forwarded message:
>
> Someone has already posted a patch to automake/libtoolize Kaffe, but
> it was never installed :-(
>
> A pity, because it would make shared library handling *much*
> easier and more portable...
>
Well, Alexandre, don't complain. You have write privileges and
are familiar with automake. You can implement it, get our feedback
and commit it if it's convincing. (*)
Also, I don't think anybody ever posted such a patch. From my recollection,
the lack of libtool was lamented, but no solution was put forth.
Back then, I raised a few concerns regarding availability, portability, etc.
I'm still not convinced. I tried automake with japhar, and hit a bug
right away that Tom Troney asked me to track down. There's no way for
me to do that, given that I don't want to get into the business of
debugging other people's perl scripts. (**)
- Godmar
(*) This sentence shows something that becomes apparent sometimes:
the lack of a decision procedure for this project. I see different
models:
a) The Linux model where Linus == Tim. Tim decides what patches go in.
b) A voting model. I think that's how Apache does things. You need a certain
number of yes votes, and there's also the possibility of vetoing.
We could restrict the veto right to Tim or something.
Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. I am personally open
to either one. The main advantage of the Tim model is of course
coherency, etc. The main disadvantage of the Tim model is that it
requires Tim to put time in active leadership for the public tree.
That is, Tim would have to look at that stuff and voice an opinion
in a reasonable amount of time. There is the potential that this
might conflict with his business obligations. Except for this concern,
I think Tim is perfectly capable of fulfilling that role. (Btw, what's
funny to read is Eric Raymond's description of successful leaders of
free software projects in his opensource.org Noosphere pamphlet.)
Or do people feel we don't need such agreements? (I certainly want to
keep the discussion/administration overhead down.)
(**) related, automake requires perl5. Do all architectures that Kaffe
covers have perl5?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:02 EDT