24 Feb
2013
24 Feb
'13
4:21 p.m.
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:41:58 -0800
"J. Liles" <malnourite(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM, hermann meyer
<brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
I don't understand you two...
Hermann, why don't use the client parts of NSM as they are if you want
to support it...
J, why don't you package only the code needed to create an NSM client
separately if it's important to him... Giving out a tarball with only
the client code, an example client, and (a link to) the documentation
won't hurt adoption...
Am 24.02.2013 06:02, schrieb J. Liles:
I stated it out already in a other thread: without ever been released as
You're not making any sense. Why would I waste my time trying to make
something which is already 100% modular and independent appear to be more
so? You clearly have some rather fundamental misunderstanding of what's
involved here. All Non-DAW etc have in common with NSM is that they share
the same author and happen to work together. If that's too much integration
for you, well then you must have some very strange motives. NSM (means available as tarball, or what ever,
with ONLY NSM included), I
wouldn't support it.
This is stupid. What difference does it make what other programs are in
the source repository? Distributions can and should package the programs
individually. Also, NSM clients require from the NSM server implementation.
There is no libnsm to link to etc. This is the definition of a non-issue.
So be it for you.
For me, a session management which I will support in my projects, have to
be released as such. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time with it. period.