hi, On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:45 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wmr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CoApp seeks to be one very specific way to do it. If it happens to work for > the > upstream project, wonderful :) If not, it's open source, and when it's broke > we > get to glue both pieces together. That's what I would like to avoid as much as I can. At least for two things: - naming convention (static vs dynamic .lib for example) - standard binary packages If it fails for these two, then right, CoApp will be just another project that brings nothing to upstream developers. And I really hope that won't be the case :) Except indeed if the CoApp goal is to be a distribution-like system. But then I would not have much interest to participate. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
