[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!