Adrien Destugues<pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > a proper port, it is easy to know what is expected. I mean it is easy > > to know where files should go and what is expected in terms of > > integration. I don't think another document is needed. > This may be true for people with a long background of developping for > BeOS, but it's easy to get lost when you start. Having a checklist for > beginner developpers will help getting the software better. Definitely agreed; a simple guide on how to port or write software in a nice way would be appreciated. While it might be natural to any long-term developer, I hope there'll be developers outside that group for Haiku as well (yes, I know there already are) ;-) > If you think the Haiku Compatible logo is not the good one for that, ok, > we can draw another one. That's not certainly the point, the point is that a logo itself is not a good idea. Besides, once we have an actual package manager, and a repository, most of these problems will be going away, anyway. We could even have our package builder spit out warnings for incorrectly ported software; it already knows if a software has files in directories where they shouldn't be. In the mean time, we should just not advertise to use any non-standard Haiku builds (by hiding them more), and don't actively support them by providing GCC4 only or hybrid packages for problematic software like libSDL. Also, the better our actual releases are, the more likely it is that they will actually be used as a base for software development; if a developer doesn't make sure his software works on a release, it's just a very sloppy developer that should be tared and feathered -- instead of putting the burden to everyone else. If you want to start an unofficial rating/logo/certification program, you'll certainly have my blessing, but it really shouldn't be part of the Haiku project. Bye, Axel.