On 06/01/2017 11:59 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > 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. >
That sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks for clarifying. -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
