Philipp Riegger <li...@anderedomain.de> posted 1243335643.9661.46.ca...@hspc30.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de, excerpted below, on Tue, 26 May 2009 13:00:43 +0200:
> Bit it seems to be quite an uninteresting topic, since the people most > affected by it (Gentoo developers) did not join the conversation, yet. > Maybe I should take this to gentoo-server@ and gentoo-portage@, it might > fit there. Agreed on the participation observation and taking it elsewhere, both. I'd think the gentoo-portage-dev list (which I also read) would be a good place for hopefully more discussion, with people actually interested. I still think it's likely better, at least at first, as a separate "helper" app, but a number of such helpers have ultimately been integrated into either portage itself, or into gentoolkit over time. Also, by doing it that way rather than by trying to change Gentoo as a whole, you avoid the prospect of /years/ of debate that has occurred over GLEP55 and with it 54, which also set about to change the package naming conventions, in this case for ebuilds. And given that PMS specifically defines binary package formats as out of its domain, I really do see that as the more practical approach... unless of course you /want/ to debate it for /years/ before anything gets done. =:^\ Then as it proves its value, it'll ultimately become the de-facto standard and be integrated into some future version of PMS or whatever. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
