Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: CS DevKit

Re: CS DevKit

From: Linus Nielsen Feltzing <linus_at_haxx.se>
Date: 2006-02-13

Bluechip wrote:
> Fair call.
> The sensible option then, seems to be leave the shortcuts for those who
> are already infected, and change the docs so as not to lure any more
> into this trap?

Already done.

> Them's the words: "open the door for inexperienced users"
> That should have been my choice of words when talking about the dilemma
> over whether to include gdb or not.
>
> Because I do not understand...
> May I ask why rockbox.org holds cygwin packages that are nothing to do
> with compiling Rockbox?

The only packages on rockbox.org are the cross compilers and the SDL
library. The rest of the packages are on your favourite cygwin mirror.

> If there's some abstract reason for it, then why not maintain the
> comprehensive install AND a Rockbox install?
> If the answer is "dupe files", then why not simply hard-link only the
> subset of directories required?
> Have you ever noted just how many useless chunks of cygwin come down
> when you select the options listed on the wiki page?

I have noticed that there are quite a few packages preselected that the
average Rockbox developer might not use. However, I prefer that instead
of maintaining a stripped-down version that will break from time to time.

> Session Start (zelazny.freenode.net:LinusN): Fri Apr 16 10:25:44 2004
> <snip>
> [10:33] <LinusN> is the Bluechip/Cyborg Systems name connected to any
> supposedly illegal activity?
> [10:34] <BC> not to my knowledge
> [10:35] <LinusN> thing is, if we write Cyborg Systems or Bluechip in the
> credits, we don't want to drag the Rockbox name in any dirt, so to speak
> [10:35] <BC> Paranoia reigns
> [10:35] <BC> ...who said that?
> [10:36] <LinusN> Björn, in a recent discussion in the matter

Yes, that was part of a private discussion we had where we discussed why
you so desperately need to hide your identity. There is nothing there
that suggests a "ploy to undermine Rockbox". Why would there be?

As we said before, we want Rockbox to be real software by real people.

> Am I wrong for thinking that it would have been nice to have received an
> email saying
> "Hey, BC, The DevKit needs updating - do you plan to continue
> maintaining it? If not, can you make it clear that it is obselete, or
> maybe remove it from your web page altogether please ...it's causing a
> lot of support issues for us as it stands."
> rather than simply read on a group one day that my work has been deemed
> "deprecated"?

Perhaps not. I guess we thought that you somehow knew about it, since
there have been some reports on the mailing list, the forums, and on IRC.

Linus
Received on Mon Feb 13 07:29:44 2006


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa