On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 04/05/12 15:48, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> On 03/05/12 14:00, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Earnie Boyd
>>> <earnie@...> wrote:
>>>> I've been adding pages to MinGW.org indexed in a block on the right
>>>> titled "What Can You Do for MinGW?" I would like feedback for the
>>>> content in those pages.
>>> Ping. Anyone?
>> I had a couple of observations, but I'll have to get back to you with them.
> Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. One of my observations
> related equally to two pages, and was trivial:
> * On each of the "Drupal Administration" and the "Content
> Administration" pages, you had said:
> "We have need of someone(s) ..."
> That's a grammatical faux-pas, since someone is strictly
> singular. I've gone ahead, and removed the offending "(s)",
> in both cases.
I understood that someones is a gross misuse of the language but I
added (s) to indicate that more than one someone could be useful.
> Beyond that, I had just one other issue:
> * On the "Software Package Contribution" page, I see:
> "... all packages should meet the guidelines of mgwport and
> have the xml data required for mingw-get to install it."
> I wasn't aware that we had agreed this, as a matter of policy. I
> have no issue with the requirement for all contributed packages to
> be installable via mingw-get, but I *do* continue to have *serious*
> reservations about the packaging conventions imposed by mgwport; I,
> for one, will *not* be adopting mgwport any time soon.
I think we need to enforce it on anyone new coming to the party. It
helps keep a consistent front. It isn't that difficult to use as a
developer even though I might not fully agree with layout, the layout
is beneficial. It helps fulfill a requirement of the GPL in
identifying the modifications. As well as provides a build path
separated from the source by default.
> I have given my reasons previously, and have yet to see a convincing
> counter argument. Indeed, Chris' adoption of mgwport for his most
> recent binutils package created a major headache for me, when I had
> recent occasion to run our GCC-3.4.5 cross-compiler build script, after
> I had installed a new hard drive, and a new version of LinuxMint on my
> current laptop. To circumvent it, I had to completely rebuild the
> binutils package locally, to correct the defective mgwport imposed
> structure, (which quite simply caused the build script to choke).
I have yet to see any difficulties but you are seasoned enough to know
what to do anyway when it comes to building systems. Not knowing what
headaches were incurred during the builds I have no further comment.