Zbigniew Baniewski wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:12PM +0100:
>>> Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
Oh, that's an easy one.
1. Most suggestions go nowhere because those who like them lack
the skills or the time to implement them, or the time to acquire
the skills, or are too lazy; while those who have the skills
don't like them or prefer other uses for their time.
2. Many suggestions get shot down because someone having a word
in the matter stands up to say, "bad idea, don't do that".
3. Some suggestions provoke a "nice idea, i shall do that"
from someone who in fact (actually!) does it.
So, it's neither "yes" nor "no", but it depends on the suggestions
themselves and on those who might consider doing the work.
Keep in mind that time is ofter scarcer than fantastic ideas.
If you really doubt that, have a look at your own todo lists.
That's about all there is to it...
> During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs.
> None of them responded even with "get lost".
[...]
> I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports"
> gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the
> "traditional" default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such
> way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package,
> which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy,
> especially for the "native" OpenBSD software (from binary packages and
> ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD?
With due respect, but -
that sounds a bit like turning the world upside down:
Lots of work and confusion, but hardly any visible effect after the
settling of all the dust.
Certainly, choosing names (like /usr/local) isn't a big deal
in the first place. But you try to tell people to change the
meaning of names they are used to for decades.
Besides, it's mostly a non-issue. Probably, you are rarely
compiling stuff from source without using the ports tree.
In those few cases, specifying --prefix=/usr/mystuff or
whatever to ./configure, or whatever needs to be done for
that particular piece of software, is easy enough.
For example, i use /usr/usta for that purpose.
Yes, that's non-standard, but that's the whole point of it. ;-)
> It doesn't need any funding to fix this.
Except that "fixing" that "issue" has the potential to break all
the existing OpenBSD installations out there.
So that's probably a class 2 suggestion, except that people got
tired of repeating "bad idea".
