On 3/28/06, Shane Stixrud <shane@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My guess is because at the time they did the patches this debate was not > hot. It seems they treated sysvinit as a proof of concept that > libelektra is usable even at the earliest stages of os initialization. everything with regard to elektra is proof of concept at the moment. Is there any upstream project new or old that is attempting to use elektra? Just point me to an upstream discussion for any codebase with a seperate set of lead developers who are working on integrating elektra even as an option for configuration. Is anyone who is responsibly for the mainline development of any application that has configuration files to deal with looking to pick up this technology and run with it? Fedora should not be crowbaring any technological leap which is meant to be a "standard" into old codebases if there isn't even obvious momentum yet with regard to new codebase adoption. I don't see any upstream project reaching for a solution to what elektra is attempting. At the very least that a very big marketing problem that the elektra project has. Billing yourself as the end all be all of configuration systems.. and you can't get any upstream project developers to see your point? Either you are overblowing the problem or your implementation has some serious flaws or you aren't making an effort to market your technology to the right people. I'm giving elektra the benefit of the doubt when I say their problem is a matter of focusing on the wrong audience. Upstream! Upstream! Upstream! Continuing to bring it up at the distribution level is a good way to never gain traction. Getting an up and coming application to bite the bullet and use your technology moves your project from "proof of concept" to "in use in the wild" -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
