On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:36:24 -0700 Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> +1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be > movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD? > Slackware? Where do we draw the line? I'd say "as need be". Here we have a few extra benefits from using a debian identifier that aren't strictly related to "package mapping". Its also easier for third party services to use our use of debian identifiers to produce the other mappings for us where known ( that is, non-gentoo entities can maintain a mapping of debian-to-foo, and we can trivially hook into that by using the debian-id as the identifer ) > Will developers be expected to treat this like a mandated element? I'd imagine not, given not everything in debian exists in gentoo, or vice versa. Similarly, I don't think there are any mandates that the other values of remote-id be populated, only that its *encouraged* because that data provides utility to an end user. > If > not, which team will have authority to touch package metadata to make > this change? I'd suggest it should stay within the controls of the package maintainer for starters, where individual maintainers can provision it as they feel fit, and we can review our stance on this later if we want to make it a tree wide consistent thing. Partly because individual maintainers are more likely to understand correctly how equivalent their dists are to the referenced debian one, and be more equipped to decide whether to include/exclude a given ref.
pgp_jERgIy23S.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
