The Strengths and Weakness of Fedora/RHEL OS management

Arthur Pemberton pemboa at
Wed Mar 29 21:50:28 UTC 2006

On 3/29/06, Shane Stixrud <shane at> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >> A full ack on this, we would solve a lot of items if we could move
> >> forward to have a standard lib for all this. But it will be very
> >> hard to have agreement on how to solve it and even more to make
> >> projects move over from their current ways.
> >
> > I think the process of getting other projects to use this "standard"
> would
> > be to put some though into the design and mark multiple backends and
> > multiple interfaces part of the design. If there are libs, modules,
> > languages binds, etc with as little dependancy hell as possible, I think
> > projects will eventually gravitate to this solution. I know I wouldn't
> roll
> > my own config parser if there is a perfectly good one already included
> on my
> > system , or which can easily be added to any system.
> I agree design is key here.  However our community generally wants no part
> of discussing requirements and then writing specifications in English.
> They want actual code... Is there a good case here for gathering
> requirements and perhaps writing a specification, getting feedback from
> the major players prior to code being written?
> Cheers,
> Shane
> Only case I see here is individual desire. People passioate enough about
this need to solve the problem. I and apperently many others simply do not
see this as a big enough problem. I am actually suprised by the length of
this thread. Don't get me wrong, I see the problem, and I think I understand
it. It just isn't a hurdle I run into often. Now, if we were talking about
the sendmail conf files....
As a boy I jumped through Windows, as a man I play with Penguins.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the devel mailing list