[rfk-dev] code status

[Peter A. H. Peterson]

Quoting Alexey Toptygin:
> Sorry for not posting anything in a while. I've put out a new release of 
> my rfk source. You can get it here:
> 
> http://alexeyt.freeshell.org/code/rfk/rfk-20051013.tgz

...all those changes sound great. Thanks!

> As far as Debian packaging goes, I'm not a registered debian developer 
> yet, so maintainership hasn't been handed over to me. I'm planning on 
> doing that in the same time frame as Debianizing the new code base, which 
> is some time after Autoconf support (Real Soon Now (TM)). I'm sorry about 
> the slow pace of the work, but I've got a full-time job, and I'm trying 
> to finish my bachelor's degree this semester (and I'm moving into a new 
> house this month), so I hope you'll forgive me :-)

If there is anything I can do, please let me know. I think this would
be a good project for me to learn about autoconf with. For that
matter, if you are uninterested in the Debian work, I am willing to do
that, too. But if you're just busy, then we can wait on both, as long
as robotfindskitten isn't going to get kicked out of Debian. Neale?

> Lastly, people have been talking about putting the vanilla NKIs back into 
> the binary. I don't really want to do this, as getting rid of this was 
> half of the reason I started rewriting RFK in the first place. If the 
> concensus weighs in the other direction, however, we could add that in as 
> a compile-time option (so that NKIs would come from the binary, 
> SYSTEM_NKI_DIR _and_ ~/.robotfindskitten). I guess deciding this is up to 
> the community.

Personally, I think that it's nice to have some NKI built in. I think
the SYSTEM_NKI_DIR and ~/.robotfindskitten are awesome enhancements,
but all the time we were griping for dynamic NKI I don't think we ever
considered all the ramifications of it. The binary by itself should
have some useable content. But that's just my opinion.

Peter

-- 
Peter A. H. Peterson, technician and musician.
 ---=[ http://tastytronic.net/~pedro/ ]=---