[blah, volny flagged your message as spam...]
"Jeremie Courreges-Anglas" <j...@wxcvbn.org> wrote:
>
>[about the dynamic core...]
>
>> It's a risk and people are free to take it or not to take it. Me's just
>> contributing a patch :)
>
> Who should provide actual data regarding the risk increases and the
> *actual benefits* if not you?
Me data is 'it helps me, and me's willing to accept the risk when
necessary'. Obviously, only the big, bloated, poorly-programmed stuff
(such as the Build engine) really benefits :)
And please do note that the dynamic core is a run-time *option*:
core=normal *still* works even with this patch applied.
> While Jonathan (maintainer) has the final
> say here, I would object to such a FLAVOR and patch being added.
*shrugs* Your objection is noted. It might help other people. Me's not
dictating anything to anyone...
> A better way to spend time on dosbox would be to investigate ways to
> improve speed without sacrificing basic security protections.
A better way would IMNSHO be to port all those fun games the hell away
from the obscure platform, *w/o* including a dependency tree that
ultimately involves gnome and python!
>[about the splash screen...]
>
> For the record:
> --8<--
> bc 1.07.1
> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012-2017 Free
> Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> For details type `warranty'.
> -->8--
Yes, exactly :r Nice if you're juggling numbers in your head and quickly
want to invoke bc to flush them...
> You're indeed free to do whatever you want on your machines, but the
> OpenBSD ports tree can't get away with removing copyright notices from
> software later distributed on the mirrors.
Me's not removing any copyright notices at all :s Just a funky splash
screen that just *happens* to get in me way.
> Again, maybe not for your own use case.
Yes, YMMV, as always.
> emulators/dosbox/Makefile:
>
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM= Yes
>
> so people may sell packages produced with the port.
If that's really so much of a problem, we can disable that for the
'nosplash' flavour. And quite possibly not even build it by default.
>[about whether or not me patch constitutes a formal proposal...]
>
> Proposals need to be reviewed, tested and committed. This takes time,
> and time is a scarce resource. So again, please make it clear whether
> you consider your next contributions proper for inclusion in the ports
> tree.
Alright, me'll make it clear: "me's honestly not sure". Y'know, medid
anticipate all these point of principle.
> You'll save other people's time and you'll avoid rants from
> grumpy porters like me: a clear win for everybody.
Rants are fine. Criticism is more than appreciated. But medoesn't like
to waste people's time, no: if medid, mehereby offers me sincere
apologies.
>[about possible dep-reducing flavours...]
>
> Looking at the deps of feh and fceux, I doubt you're having a point
> here.
fceux: devel/desktop-file-utils, devel/scons, x11/gtk+2
feh: devel/desktop-file-utils, x11/gtk+3
And all that stuff pulls in python. Some things just go too far for me.
--zeurkous.
--
Friggin' Machines!
