| 1 |
On 12/13/03 02:51:51, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 13:48, Heinrich Wendel wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Based on the comments of the last thread on -dev about this GLEP I |
| 4 |
> created a |
| 5 |
> > new version. Please take a look at |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0016.html |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The substance of this isn't changed as far as I can tell: the brunt |
| 10 |
> of |
| 11 |
> creating all these .desktop files and maybe icons still lies on us. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I still agree with a point made in the last thread: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What's so bad about filing this as an upstream request instead? It |
| 16 |
> significantly reduces our work since we don't have to do it for |
| 17 |
> hundreds |
| 18 |
> of packages. Instead, an upstream developer only has to do it once. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In one sence you could say: "There is no Gentoo, only Portage!" and you |
| 22 |
would be right, it is an upstream responsibility. I also belive that |
| 23 |
this is the only practical way of the Gentoo community. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
On the other hand, if Gentoo Linux is ever going to be a complete OS, |
| 26 |
the Gentoo community must take responsibility for every last bit of |
| 27 |
code in it. In this case I belive that metadata should be part of the |
| 28 |
package not the application. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
/John |
Archives