[csw-maintainers] [csw-users] cswproto not found

[Ben Walton]

Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu Mar 12 12:54:34 -0400 2009:
> > 1. We should dogfood as much csw stuff as we can.  That means that we
> >    have abspath available.
> 
> Errr... we have eclipse available. does that mean we should use eclipse to
> write all csw software? :-}
> I think not.

Well, if you were using eclipse as your IDE for whatever purpose, I'd
suggest using the CSW version instead of a locally installed one.  It
only makes sense for the group making the tools available to use those
same tools.

Since there is no need to use an IDE to write code (unless you prefer
to), then I say this is a bad example.  In the case of GAR, we (by
definition) need a make package.  Therefore, I hold that it makes
sense to rely on the CSW version of make which happens to be a modern
gmake.  If we didn't provide gmake, you'd have a better point.

Since I think it makes sense to rely on our own version of gmake,
there is no reason not to use the features it provides.  If you're
crafting packages for CSW, whether on the build box or not, it makes
sense to use the available CSW tools.

> > ...and for the record, much of my attraction to CSW in the first place
> > was to get modern versions of things I take for granted on a Linux
> > box.  It's not about 'oooh shiny,' it's about hey, I've had feature X
> > on Linux boxes for several years now (eg: not latest latest),
> > I'm kind of grumpy without it.
> 
> Making the feature available to others, does not mean we have to use it
> ourselves.

No, we don't have to use the features, but where they are a) available
in a CSW package and b) better/easier than not using the feature, we
should.  We are talking about CSW specific tools here after all.

If new features are never used, then there is no point in developing
them in the first place.  Lowest common denominator sucks for
software.  Sometimes it is necessary, but I don't think this is one of
those cases.

> For another example: we provide gcc4.
> That doesnt mean that any C code we might happen to write and publish,
> should be splattered with gcc4-only GNUisms.

I mostly agree with this, but I also don't think it'd be the end of
the world.  If the tool is meant for internal purposes (as GAR is),
relying on the best features we have available makes sense.  If you're
writing code for multiple platforms, staying as platform agnostic as
possible is more of a virtue.

-Ben
-- 
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302

GPG Key Id: 8E89F6D2; Key Server: pgp.mit.edu
Contact me to arrange for a CAcert assurance meeting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20090312/b896c35c/attachment-0001.asc>