On 29 Aug 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Nick Holland writes:
> > You have repeatedly, on your dns@ list, advised people to just
> > download the source from your sites and install it by your directions
> > (which ARE rather straight forward and trivial), not use ports, RPMs,
> > etc.
> > False. Here's what actually happened:
> > * Someone had trouble with the FreeBSD port of daemontools.
> * I explained that the port didn't work correctly.
> * I recommended following the official installation instructions.
> * I recommended complaining to the port author.
The careful reader might want to compare the above to the original text and
decide for himself if this is ``what actually happened''. Note the
quotation marks around port and the words 'unauthorized' and 'unsupported'.
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=djbdns&m=99672234530662&w=2)
D. J. Bernstein wrote:
| ``The port'' is unauthorized and unsupported. It does not correctly
| install daemontools. Remove it, and do the installation properly:
|
| http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/install.html
|
| Then complain to the author of ``the port.''
I`m picking this up from the archive, but as it`s current, I think I`ll add
my limited comments.
Come on people. Can you Two geniuses (sincere, I think Dan and Theo
are) just agree to disagree (ie. you have different viewpoints and
requirements) and stop slagging each other off (directly and
backhandedly). I quite expect John McEnroe to step in any moment ;-)
On to this careful reader bit above. Camiel, I see nothing inconsistent in
Dan`s summary and what you have pulled from the archives. Are you looking
at it from another perspective as opposed to Dan`s perspective, ie. the
authors ?
So someone had a problem with the port and e-mailed the djbdns mailing
list. - fine.
Dan says it is unauthorized - ie. they didn`t ask him for
permission. - Again, fine, perhap`s they didn`t.
Dan says it is unsupported - That is always the case for Dan's
software. Dan wants one set of docs that work for every
system/installation. KISS. That means if a port changes any default
install location then it no longer ties in with the docs and hence is
unsupported. Having to do mental backflips because parts are in different
locations is troublesome and complicated to support and follow, especially
with limited info (e.g. mailing list reports).
I support 13 OS's, Eight of them Unix. Having Dan's software in one
consistent location is a godsend and I only have to worry about the startup
scripts.
NOTE - I install from source so don`t know what the port did. it doesn`t
matter. I am explaining Dan`s philosphy as I understand it. - Fine again.
It does not work correctly - I guess so as the guy had problems - Fine.
Dan says to do the installation properly with a link - ie. from
source - Fine.
Dan says to complain to the author of the ports - Fine.
I don`t see any discrepancy. Both were from Dan's perspective. You are
looking at it from his perspective and not from someone else's viewpoint ?
Regards...Martin
|