[csw-maintainers] questions about GAR, history, and naming

[Philip Brown]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
<maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
>I'd like us to make development
> decisions based on current needs rather than aesthetics. The
> restructuring of GAR can be filed in an issue tracking system so the
> idea doesn't get lost or forgotten.

Hmm. an idea that is filed away and never acted upon, may as well be forgotten.
The idea of having a proper "gar package" that is a CSW package, has
been lurking around for YEARS now, and never acted upon.

> Is "to do things cleanly" the only reason, or are there more reasons?

Well, to me, it is also somewhat of a branding issue. We cant really
publicise our build system fairly. It's almost as bad as sun labelling
everything they do, "sun java xxxx" :-)
Claiming "we use gar", at this point,is very wrong. What we use is not
"gar", but "gar++".
And the longer we wait to fix this issue, the worse it gets.

It would have been easier to fix this a year ago, than now, I think
everyone can agree.
It stands to reason it will be even more difficult to fix this a year
in the future, than to fix this now.



It bothers me to the point where I would do the work myself, but all
my "free" time goes to package release issues, etc.