[csw-maintainers] Alternatives (was: [csw-devel] SF.net SVN: gar:[11132] csw/mgar/pkg/alternatives/trunk)

Peter FELECAN pfelecan at opencsw.org
Mon Oct 4 17:01:35 CEST 2010

Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> writes:

> Hi Phil,
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:
>> Added: csw/mgar/pkg/alternatives/trunk/README
>> ===================================================================
>> --- csw/mgar/pkg/alternatives/trunk/README
>> (rev 0)
>> +++ csw/mgar/pkg/alternatives/trunk/README	2010-10-02 17:57:09
>> UTC (rev 11132)
>> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
>> +A quickie readme for the future, about this "alternatives"
>> implementation:
>> +
>> +Phil decided that a from-scratch, CSW-custom implementation was
>> needed,
>> +because the debian one was hugely bloated, and the redhat smaller
>> one,
>> +did not play nicely with NFS-shared /opt/csw
>> +So pleaes dont go getting ideas that we can migrated back to
>> redhat,etc
>> +in the future! :) we tried, and it failed.
> Ähhhh, what? At least I cannot remember that it failed. You insisted
> to rewrite the otherwise fully working RedHat implementation just
> because of the NFS-Share /opt/csw issue. And after seeing all these
> issues with the rewrite the big question is: is it worth it?

IMO not. People over the pond always said that NIH (Not Invented Here)
is an European engineer syndrome. The question is: why reinvent the
wheel? I thought that building on existing component was one of the open
source software advantages. If the RedHat version is 99% adapted to our
distribution (BTW which are the differences with the Debian version?)
why not use-it, even if we maintain a set of specific patches?

More information about the maintainers mailing list