4 ms·
Or you could feed your kids. A small team can not maintain that much and if it is not your core business you should probably not try.
by tetete 3y ago
Or you could feed your kids. A small team can not maintain that much and if it is not your core business you should probably not try.
- saagarjha 3y agoHow is a library you depend on not your core business? If they don't support things you want, then this sounds like your problem.
- nomel 3y agoThe SSL library is nobody's core business, yet every business depends on it. Most libraries are just infrastructure, way down, that we build stuff on. Core business has a specific meaning: > the business activity that is main source of a company's profits and success Maintaining libraries is not the core business of those that use those libraries, most of the time. That's why people use libraries.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y agoThis is it an either/or: you can find the problem libraries and submit the work back upstream so you don’t have to maintain it. Then, for the upstream that don’t cooperate, fork temporarily until you find an alternative.
- nomel 3y agoTo their point, all of this is not trivial. You could just compile as x86 and be done with in in 5 minutes, assuming the performance hit is acceptable.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y agoIt’s not trivial, but it’s also not a long-term maintenance cost if upstream accepts the patch.
- nomel 3y ago> long-term maintenance cost if upstream accepts the patch When they said "maintain", I read it as short term, doing this if and when for all libraries down the dependency chain. Or, compile as x86, and wait until external resources push for the support.