Re: XFree86 modularization

David Dawes ([email protected]):

> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 01:59:36PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote:
> >David Dawes ([email protected]):
> >
> >> Some of us feel that having a simple, complete and integrated build
> >> process is important.  Addressing the well-known build-time
> >> configuration inadequacies would be a better solution in my opinion,
> >> and would have broader benefit than just this specific class of issue.
> >> 
> >> Maybe in the end it's just the philosophical difference between those
> >> who prefer, say, the FreeBSD approach vs the typical Linux approach.
> >> I can go to freebsd.org, check out the FreeBSD CVS, and build a
> >> complete and well-integrated system from a single command line.
> >
> >  I don't think this is the only philosophical difference.  In my
> >opinion, it is clearly more convenient for both users and developers of
> >a project to have it include the source trees of their dependencies.
> >Lots of reasons have been mentioned.
> >
> >  That said, linking to externally maintained libraries means you're
> >    a) respecting that you are a member in a larger development
> >       community, and
> >    b) making an implicit commitment to that project that you will
> >       contribute back fixes.
> >
> >  Neither of these are obligations under the licensing, but I think to
> >do otherwise is somewhat insulting to the maintainers (packaging and
> >maintaining a library and ensuring compatibility and widespread
> >usefulness is hard work), and also somewhat anti-social to the larger
> >development community, regardless of any technical argument either way.
> 
> What a load of claptrap.

  I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.

> So what is your conclusion?

  Simply that if it were my project, I wouldn't do it.

  -Billy