Re: A New Package
* Stephen J Turnbull <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Youngs
<youngs_s(a)ozlinx.com.au> writes:
Steve> It is free software, so, in your
eyes it's not a dilemma?
Right. If you have the resources to provide more than one port,
great! If not, it's not your responsibility. The only thing that
we'd like is a polite response to the occasional inquiry about when
you plan to port to Platform X. :-) That response can be a flat
"never" and still be polite :-)
Yep, I can handle that. I promise not to raise my voice once while
replying to requests of ports. :-) And I won't even use a canned form
letter :-)
Seriously, I hold XEmacs [1] in very high regard, it's a fantastic
piece of software that is very well respected in the community. I
wouldn't dream of doing anything to harm it's image.
Steve> Should I just submit the package as is and mark the
Steve> description "For Linux x86 only - please port me"?
Yes, but I would phrase that as "developed and tested on Linux
x86;
only supported on that platform" (you do plan to support it with the
occasional bugfix and coordinating 3rd party contribs, right?)
Definitely. I've already spent a great deal of time on this I'm not
about to waste it by not maintaining it.
Footnotes:
[1] that includes all the developers, beta testers and anybody else
who helps make XEmacs what it is.
--
|---<Regards, Steve Youngs>-----------[GnuPG KeyID: EFD82ED2]---|
| It's a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept |
| anything but the best, you very often get it |
|-----------------------------<mailto:youngs_s＠ozlinx.com.au>---|