| 1 |
Hi all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel |
| 4 |
strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages' |
| 5 |
metadata.xml. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I ask this because I was looking through some crypto based packages that |
| 8 |
require specific hardware that seems to have been maintained "at eye |
| 9 |
level" for quite a while, such as pcsc-lite. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In this case, pcsc-lite has changed more than a few times its API, since |
| 12 |
it tries to follow what Microsoft implements in Windows, and as such the |
| 13 |
packages depending on it needed to actually follow closely. So for |
| 14 |
instance, for pcsc-lite 1.6.1 you need ccid 1.3.1, while for pcsc-lite |
| 15 |
1.6.4 you need ccid 1.4.0 – older versions of ccid will fail with modern |
| 16 |
versions of pcsc-lite – but both eye-maintainers and arch teams didn't |
| 17 |
know that and while we _had_ a broken stable tree for x86 and amd64, we |
| 18 |
_still_ have broken stable trees for ppc/ppc64. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What I'm thinking of is having some sort of <maintainernotes> element, |
| 21 |
but not a passive one that has to be tested for, rather something that |
| 22 |
repoman would spit out on the terminal when doing a scan/full. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Comments? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” |
| 28 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, |
| 31 |
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ |
Archives