X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:47:34 -0400
Message-Id: <201507290247.t6T2lYPF025964@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1507290419490.6924@igor2priv>
	(gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA fail metrics
References: <CAOP4iL3PR9Yu1g+iKbQqkYY-pLYBvFFfRUDKmiYhLZTQH0Tbag AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1507290419490 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> "* Your source builds using something that isn't GNU Make [ +10 points of 
> FAIL ]"
> 
> I don't think all open source software should depend on GNU Make.

I think he meant "does not build with GNU make" - i.e. requires some
other make, or uses a non-make system.  This might be a popularity
test; most people have GNU make and are familiar with GNU make (and
standard Makefiles), so if you can't build with that, a lot of people
will be discouraged from helping.  I feel that way about cmake - it
might be a good system, but since I don't know it, I avoid things that
use it.

> The == History == part is buggy too: the only way to come up with a proper 
> open source software is to start it from scratch?

I think he's saying that a copy of something else is less likely to
thrive than something more individual.  There have been lots of
proprietary apps that have been "open sourced" but what they really
mean is "we threw an old copy of the sources over the fence but we
don't take care of it any more."  Or, there have been OSS projects
that got forked by some disgruntled user but the original authors
still contribute to the original version.  Etc.