Re: [wmii] sh flame with Uriel

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:45:44PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
> I don't have time to argue every time you decide to change tons of
> stuff for no reason, just to have to change it back again a few days,
> weeks, months later.

Nice attempt to evade my questions.

> You are completely ignoring the main reason for 9base, which certainly
> had nothing to do with performance or even sanity: portability.

Portability? You're a funny joker:
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=&pkg=9base
Not to mention lib9/getcallerpc-<arch>.foo stuff.
(at least the /bin/sh stuff will compile fine on this platforms)

Do you think that ksh behaves differently on different
platforms? If portability is an issue and some exotic WtfBSD
user oder FooBarLinux user encounters portability issues, he
just installs bash or ksh and goes with it. There is absolutely
no difference in installing p9p on such platforms, except that
p9p does not compiles everywhere. Also, who cares for such
exotic corner cases? Even Plan 9 contains sh.

> Before gratuitously changing everything back and forth every dot
> release or snap, you could at least make some effort to remember why
> it was that way in the first place. It isn't like the first, second,
> third, fourth, over even one hundredth time we go over the same
> process of changing things back and forth because you prefer to keep
> changing crap that at least already worked half properly instead of
> fixing really important stuff like focus or full screen.

Agreed, and I know that the development process of wmii was
rather chaotic and CATD-alike[1], but it is my freetime project, so
what. I can do what I like in my freetime.

> P.S.: Obviously maintaining two separated sets of scripts is totally
> unacceptable, most people are a bit surprised at first by the rc
> system, but once the learn and understand it, they appreciate to have
> a sane system that works the same _everywhere_, hell that is the
> _only_ reason various stuff like awk is in 9base. The keyword is
> _consistency_. The main reason to move to mk eventually was the same.
> Also note that if/once mk is properly packaged, depending on it is no
> different from depending on make, which is not included by default on
> many systems anyway.

I don't care if maintaining two separate sets of scripts is
unacceptable or not, because I only officially maintain one set
which can be found in wmii/rc/ and which is sh-based now. I'd
never maintain two sets.

It is unacceptable for me to maintain p9p-base, because that
would be much more effort than maintaining a separate set of
scripts. So, you can ask for a poll here, but I bet that only
some users would agree with you, that it is a good idea to force
people to download plan9port in order to run wmii.

> [1] http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html

So answer my questions please.

Regards,

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361