[procps] Re: merging
- From: Jaromir Capik <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:00:41 -0400 (EDT)
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:42:42PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:29:35AM +0200, Sami Kerola wrote:
> > > It would be great to see procps-ng + psmisc + util-linux all in
> > > same
> > > source tree. But that is not my call. Craig, please consider
> > > letting
> > > Karel becoming maintainer for them all. I am sure you have enough
> > > to
> > > do without being upstream for these utilities. And I am
> > > absolutely
> > > sure your contributions will be credited in decent and permanent
> > > manner, assuming merge to util-linux would happen.
> > I'm not that keen on the idea really. It means loss of control and
> > we've
> > had problems with this before, hence the split out in the past.
>
> Hmm... util-linux with more than 80 binaries is not random project
> controlled by a crazy stubbornness maintainer :-)
Ahoj Karle.
Maybe you've already read my answer to Lennarts email.
I admit it was written in affect, but it reflects my opinion
quite well.
>
> > I don't understand the infrastructure benefit, its not like
> > sourceforge
+1
It breaks the basic principle of modularity (at lease when packaged
without subpackages).
I would encourage splitting of util-linux to more separate subpackages
and to move common parts into one or more shared libraries instead.
So as you see, some people might have a different opinion.
>
> For example many Sami's patches are based/inspired on util-linux
> source tree.
>
> I believe that we can save time, share a lot of code and experience
> and work *together* to create better basic Linux utils.
Let's create common libraries then. Do we need to merge the whole project
because of some common parts?
>
> Karel
>
Jaromir.
> --
> Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> http://karelzak.blogspot.com
>
>
Other related posts:
