From: Linus Nielsen Feltzing <linus_at_haxx.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:24:36 +0100

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 2006-02-13