Bug#617749: O: qcontrol -- hardware control for QNAP Turbo Station devices
* Bas Delfos <b.delfos@gmail.com> [2011-03-14 15:48]:
> As a programmer i don't like the current implementation of qcontol. It
> is based on an executable to communicate with the PIC-controller, the
> real logic for fan control and temperature is implemented in a
> different script with LUA code. It sure is a flexible solution, as you
> don't have to recompile the package when changing the LUA script. In
> my eyes a better solution would be one daemon executable with all
> logic and one configuration file in e.g. /etc/qcontrol.
Bernhard Link (CCed) also expressed concerns with the design of
qcontrol, although I cannot recall his exact reasons. If you want to
work on a completely new program, it might be worth talking to him.
> Can you explain what the roles are of the maintainer?
The role of a maintainer in Debian is to work with users on one side
(bug reports, etc) and the upstream developer on the other side. The
latter is of course difficult because the upstream developer is not
active, so a good Debian maintainer would be able to exhance qcontrol
and feed it upstream.
However, it seems your interest is not in maintaining qcontrol but in
replacing it. This is a fine goal too but not what this bug report is
about. If nobody volunteers to maintain qcontrol and you come up with
a solution that is better, we can remove qcontrol from Debian after
putting your solution in.
(I don't think C# is the right solution for this problem, though.)
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
Reply to: