RE: Addition of two new modules under cvs.gnome.org



On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 19:44, Alex Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Shivram U wrote:
> 
> > Hi Havoc,
> > 
> > > It's fine to keeping these in CVS, but getting them into the GNOME
> > > module list will probably require an answer to the question "why
> > > didn't you just port procman to support Solaris" (for the ProcView
> > > one).
> > >
> > > Havoc
> > 
> > Keeping these in CVS should be fine. This way interested developers can
> > access them and work on the same.
> > The reason i didnt port procman to support Solaris is because procman
> > depends on libgtop and i took out the dependency with gprocview.
> > Ofcourse these are still in the infancy stage and have a long way to go to
> > get into the GNOME module list.
> 
> You took out the porting layer and then you expect the rest of the 
> community to fix the fact that your app only works on solaris?
> Seems a bit strange to me.

s/strange/stupid, moronic, usual/g

Pfffff

-- 
/Bastien Nocera
http://hadess.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]