[rfk-dev] bugs

Eric S. Raymond esr at thyrsus.com
Sun Oct 28 13:32:32 PDT 2012

Peter A. H. Peterson <pedro at tastytronic.net>:
> What do people think about having a release version number -- the
> X.YYYY number -- which is relevant for releases, packages, etc., but
> at runtime the version number in the status area displays a dynamic
> count of the NKIs loaded at startup?
> That way, the version number from the perspective of the build tools
> is separate from the more whimsical tertiary NKI count.

I'd be opposed to this change.

If part of the version number is going to be computed at runtime
rather than being a reflection of the revision level of the software
as compiled, I don't see any point in concatenating it to the version
number other than confusing people.

> I don't have a particular opinion about [build tools], although I side towards
> inertia/tradition/whatever will be easier for downstream packagers/current
> maintainers, etc. rather than moving to something which may be nicer
> in some sense but could be a headache for others. 
> Regardless, I think this is a decision that needs to be made by the
> group.

And it's not one I have a strong position on.  I have come to
generally dislike autotools and would enjoy scraping those barnacles
off our hull, but it's not something that I judge *needs* to happen.
The suckage can be lived with.
> > Note for the future: I am willing to take the laboring oar in maintaining
> > the NKI list.
> I would prefer to keep that job for the time being, at least for the
> official POSIX edition. 

I most willingly and cheerfully defer to your seniority in this matter. 

I hope my NKIs meet with your approval.  The only one I'm really wedded
to is the RFC1149 joke - I'd be sad if you nixed that.

> I'll play around wih this more and think about it. I totally get why
> the frame makes sense, and there's a part of me that definitely likes
> it in a kind of "why didn't we always do this?" way, but it's also an
> unanticipated change so I think it's worth the group discussing it
> rather than just accepting it passively.

Discuss away.  Setting FRAME to 0 will be easy if the gang so decides.
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

More information about the rfk-dev mailing list