stdarg at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 10 10:22:57 CST 2004
--- Dariusz Kulinski <takeda at eggheads.w.pl> wrote:
> Eggdrop 1.9 is far from over, and doesn't look that there is many
> developers who can contribute to it. For example there is a lot
> confusing stuff for small developers (like me :) also there is huge
> problem to even compile on every machine (each time I check out the
> eggdrop) something was changed so it won't compile anymore.
It's funny because we moved to some really new version of autotools so that it
would be more portable. That kind of backfired! Maybe it would have worked out
if anybody had totally finished converting stuff though.
What kind of compile errors do you get?
> Eggdrop 1.9 is neat and have a lot good changes and features. But I
> think the changes went too far, and if there won't be anything done
> I'm afraid that version will end up as eggdrop 2.0.
> What I'm suggesting is to maybe starting to make it useable again, so
> people like me could contribute and do small fixes. I.e. if I cannot
> compile and use bot, I cannot see what was done and what is missing.
> I also don't understand some changes, looks like many command have
> been removed, for example old .whois command looks like debug output,
> instead of old .whois which was pretty good and I don't see reason for
> changing it.
Ya we should focus first on getting it to compile on everybody's computers. One
thing, do you have an account on techmonkeys? I'm pretty sure it compiles fine
on there. I might be able to spend some time this weekend working on that. Just
let me know all the errors.
Also, what versions of autoconf, automake, etc do you have?
> Also what do you think about back porting changes from 1.9 to 1.7 (of
> course if it's possible)?
> Best regards,
> Dariusz mailto:takeda at eggheads.w.pl
> http://eggdrop.takeda.tk - eggdrop help forum
Do you Yahoo!?
Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping.
More information about the Eggdev