| 1 |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:58:36 -0400 |
| 2 |
Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Would it be more constructive to create a list of new |
| 4 |
> features/capabilities that depend on this GLEP. For each I'd define: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. The feature/unmet need. |
| 7 |
> 2. Why it can't be done or can only be done poorly without the new |
| 8 |
> GLEP. 3. When we're likely to see the feature become available |
| 9 |
> assuming the GLEP were approved. |
| 10 |
> 4. What package managers are likely to implement it. (Ie their |
| 11 |
> maintainers endorse the need. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It sounds like this list might already have some items on it - so why |
| 14 |
> not document them? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The GLEP already documents what needs it, in the broadest reasonable |
| 17 |
terms. The problem with specifics is that everyone will then start |
| 18 |
arguing about how exactly, say, per-cat/pkg eclasses would work, which |
| 19 |
is irrelevant to the GLEP. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives