| 1 |
Robert Buchholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> The consumers of the PackageMap will always only use the central |
| 3 |
> database. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I'm not sure about that. I rather assume it will happen. |
| 6 |
Especially use ignoring the substitution map. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I am convinced the project will be more viable if people can choose |
| 10 |
> their level of contribution. Many developers just won't care enough to |
| 11 |
> take the extra hassle. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Agreed. However, I don't see a huge difference in level of |
| 14 |
extra hassle. The most difficult thing is doing who's-the-vendor |
| 15 |
research in my eyes atm which is the same at both ends. |
| 16 |
Maybe collaborating at a central place can add some fun that |
| 17 |
adding "some field I don't really care about" downstream cannot. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Btw on Gentoo putting it in metadata.xml might be adding to the risk |
| 20 |
of a checksum mismatch, at least for extra edits. No idea if |
| 21 |
QA tools will catch 90% of that happening. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> If you make merging easy, I don't see how this hurts the project. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't see how easy merging compensates for the issues I brought up. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Can I have a few more voices on this?: Would you clearly feel more |
| 30 |
comfortable and motivated to contribute to PackageMap if it works |
| 31 |
at your distro's source package? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Sebastian |
Archives