Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
needing to be enforced?
In my opinion, yes.
This is because if not, every project might insist that "their packaging
is better", or just not think about it, and thus not follow the defacto
standard, if there is such a thing.
Why are there such differences now, then?
This is, if one would go for such an approach, a top-level decision that
shouldn't be up to the projects to decide - you're "apache compliant"
only if you follow this packaging. And it really isn't a big enforcement
either, it's just that it should be crammed in from the get-go, so that
the projects do think about it, and started out in line with the rest.
Note that I do not in any way suggest that the entire layout of the
system, nor the build system (!!) or similar should be enforced, just
the end-packaging for the "bins" (which really is what (most) people
download - they want "the working stuff", the open source aspect is in
this regard just a potential tailorability and important safety (and
hopefully quality) sign).
Regards,
Endre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
