Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Hans W. Horn wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
> > ...
> > Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a
> > closer look at the source packaging.
> >
> > There were many issues - the most serious being that the source
> > package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and
>
> hear - hear (you didn't look, did you?)!

Yes, I did.

And just to be sure, I used grep. It was not there.

> > many minor deficiencies related to using a home-grown build script,
> > rather than the tried-and-true cygwin template.
>
> typical NIH syndrom!

NIH?

> > I am sorry, but the conclusion I came to was that it would be less
> > effort for me to produce my own packages of doxygen, based on the the
> > generic-build-script, than to assist in getting these packages up to a
> > good-to-go status.
>
> You're so full of it!
> But, honestly, I saw this coming! I'd say - why don't you just shove it!
>
> And seriously, I really can't remember why I even thought it would be a 
> good
> thing to offer my services to maintain anything for the cygwin crowd!
> That memory has gotten somewhat hazy!
> Bye now!

All Cygwin package maintainers work to the set of guidelines that the 
project has designed for itself, and which are posted on the website. If you 
desire to help, but lack the time or inclination to meet the guidelines the 
project has defined for itself, then you will discover that whilst your 
desire to help is appreciated, you actual offerings may not actually be 
helpful to the project.

This is a simple fact. If it angers you... there is nothing I can do about 
that.

Max.