1 |
Robert Buchholz wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 13 June 2009, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
3 |
>> One of the stronger points for collaborating at the source is that |
4 |
>> poeple who are not Gentoo devs (yet) and therefore have no write |
5 |
>> access to the Gentoo tree can still extend and fix the Gentoo |
6 |
>> packagemap entries. Doing it downstream would hurt the whole project |
7 |
>> in several ways. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> To drive the project forward and find cross-distro acceptance, the |
10 |
> packagemap repo/server has to be the authorative source of information |
11 |
> for distributions that participate. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> However, I see advantages in a distributed model to collect the |
14 |
> information. Gentoo developers could feed <cpe> tags into the |
15 |
> metadata.xml of the tree and do not need to sign up to commit to the |
16 |
> third-party packagemap repository. Synchronizing changed tags to the |
17 |
> packagemap repository should be easy to automate. Changes in the |
18 |
> repository could be propagated back to the tree by a designated team of |
19 |
> Gentoo developers interested in the packagemap project. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> I have a feeling other distributions might also favor a model where they |
22 |
> have more control about the data without giving all their devs access |
23 |
> to one big repo. |
24 |
|
25 |
Paul Wise of Debian also articulated interest in doing database building |
26 |
at distro level, so that's one more point /for/ your feeling. |
27 |
|
28 |
However there are a few more things to take into account, |
29 |
please have a look at my reply to Paul: |
30 |
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/popcon-developers/2009-June/001759.html |
31 |
|
32 |
Sorry for not CC'ing you, I should have though of that. |
33 |
|
34 |
Thinking the other way around: Is there anything we could do |
35 |
to make the central place approach work and feel better for everybody? |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
Sebastian |