standard dependancy system

Kai-Uwe Behrmann ku.b at
Sun Nov 25 11:09:38 PST 2007

Am 25.11.07, 18:48 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
> Le dimanche 25 novembre 2007 à 16:35 +0100, Kai-Uwe Behrmann a écrit :
> So checking build logs, while nice, is almost always a massive waste of
> time. Except for projects that do fix every warning and where you know
> any remaining message is a problem.

> > > > Distributors should be forceable to meet quite other standards.
> > > 
> > > Please add this at the start of your web sites so I know never to touch
> > > anything you produced. Either you make it easy to do the "right
> > 
> > Please eighter quote me with appropriate context or let it be. You changed
> > the content inacceptable. With the term forceable, I mean a software 
> > mechanism, which enforces a upstream maintainer policy for 
> > downstream distribution. This is quite obvious from te omited context.
> That's what I understood. And I can tell you most every packager will


> avoid like the plague an author who thinks he needs to force his policy
> instead of fixing the bugs his software hits in the wild.

What has a policy to do with bugs?

> You only "need" to "force" a policy when your code doesn't work as-is,

Yes, of course. Thats why libtiff's configure refuses to compile without 
a C compiler. It enforces previous installation of such dependency, 
pretty normal these days. Continues with licenses and so on, as well 
enforcing something. I would call this all part of a policy, in this case 
for a C source code project.

Probably we use terms here different and you think about "force" within 
limits or i a certain context, which I am not aware of.

> and you refuse to assume this but want to force others to change their
> environments so they don't hit your problems and you don't have to fix
> them.

We should not further compare apples with oranges or bugs with dependencies.

Kai-Uwe Behrmann
developing for colour management +

More information about the xdg mailing list