Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 14:23:05 -0500 (EST) From: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> To: Karl Denninger <karl@Denninger.Net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> Subject: Re: ports/15822: Update port misc/HomeDaemon to V0.99 Message-ID: <XFMail.000101142305.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> In-Reply-To: <20000101130202.A50949@Denninger.Net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01-Jan-00 Karl Denninger wrote: > I'm perfectly fine with you Steve - while you may think I "went after" you, > I in fact didn't (and didn't mean to). Will, on the other hand, I did - he > categorically rejected design decisions I made for *very valid* reasons, > without taking the time or effort to understand them (and the reasons ARE > there, in the package's README file), and when I tried to explain again > I got no reply back. I'm sorry, I didn't know about these design decisions you made. You could have simply mentioned these in your original reply to my thoughts based on your PLIST, and avoided this entire episode. I _AM_ human.. The fact is, however, I did reply to your original reply. Maybe it didn't go through? Stuff happens. > This isn't a piece of hackery on my part - this package literally runs my > entire home. In fact, with the exception of the guest bedrooms and a few > other places where visitors would be literally astonished (and perhaps > freak out) its influence is nearly ubiquous here at my house. It has also > garnered a rather significant following (although perhaps the majority of > users are Linux folks) in that its one of the few packages for this purpose > that can talk not only to the "common" X10 stuff but also to Applied > Digital's > hard-wired analog and digital I/O devices - a big bonus that most of the > other > packages for this purpose do not have. And all of that is PERFECTLY respectable! :-) > This port may in fact need NO_PACKAGE set in the Makefile, at least for > now. I suspect that building a package is probably a bad choice due to > the fact that as things stand (as of 0.99) there is a compile-time switch > that has to be set depending on the version of code you have from Dan > Lancini (the guy who wrote the interface piece that this package needs > to talk to the CM11A). If you're considering committing the port you > might just want to go ahead and make that addition - I suspect its > the "right choice", at least for the time being. If you have a compile-time switch, couldn't you allow an override through a runtime switch (like through getopt())? Just another thought. > BTW, the "submit followup" button is worthless to me on the web interface > to GNATS, as I don't do Microsoft-style mail things, and the "mailto" link > tries to reference something (mailto:) that I don't have set up. You can, if you are just going to reply in conversational form, just use your reply function in your MUA. There's really no reason to use that "submit followup" form Steve suggested, but it's there. -- Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.000101142305.andrews>