Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Jun 2009 08:51 UTC
"Intel has created a new network management and configuration system for Linux called ConnMan - but not everyone is pleased to see it challenge NetworkManager. Ars looks at the pros and "conns" of the decision to create the new software."
Thread beginning with comment 370750
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Here we go again...
by vivainio on Tue 30th Jun 2009 07:49
in reply to "RE[6]: Here we go again..."
Member since:2008-12-26
The time that could have been used to fix bugs that occur on Fedora is now used to create an RPM instead. How is this a good thing?
But you'll have to create the rpm anyway. Later on, it's just about building the rpm.
It does. It takes time to learn how packaging works and it takes time to get up to speed.
Yeah, but again, this needs to happen anyway. Once you have the packaging working, the changes to it are easy to make.
Why do you see "stability" as synonymous to "halting development"? It's definitely possible to have both. Why not strive harder to have both?
Most libs aim for source and binary compatibility across "major" versions. Of course we can always say "work better!" to all the lib vendors, but it's always about juggling the resources available.
Personally, I don't think binary compatibility matters all that much. Lacking it is a bit of a hurdle for closed source vendors, but not enough to be concerned about. We'll see whether it becomes a real problem few years down the road, but currently thinking too much about it is not worth it.
RE[8]: Here we go again...
by FooBarWidget on Tue 30th Jun 2009 08:34
in reply to "RE[7]: Here we go again..."
Member since:2005-11-11
But you'll have to create the rpm anyway.
You keep talking about how this "needs to happen anyway" as if it's a fact that can never be changed. The point is that it shouldn't have to be like this, that the community should strive to unify packaging efforts in order to reduce wasted efforts. Why shouldn't the community do that? Why should this be the mentality instead?
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-11
The time that could have been used to fix bugs that occur on Fedora is now used to create an RPM instead. How is this a good thing?
It does. It takes time to learn how packaging works and it takes time to get up to speed.
How do you write a Debian spec file? I keep forgetting it so every time I have to hunt Google for an example file and related documentation. Ditto for RPMs, which I haven't created for 5 years now but last time I remember it it was quite a horrific experience involving rebuilding the package numerous times o get right. Maybe an experienced packager can do it faster but it takes time to become experienced.
Why do you see "stability" as synonymous to "halting development"? It's definitely possible to have both. Why not strive harder to have both?