| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:45:08 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Just curious, were you happy with the previous GLEP54 draft or were |
| 4 |
> there still issues that had to be addressed? As far as I'm concerned |
| 5 |
> it's fine. (though I would change the suffix to -live, just because i |
| 6 |
> hate the term "SCM" :P) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm happy with GLEP 54 as being the first, easy half of getting proper |
| 9 |
scm support. It correctly solves the ordering and identification issues. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The second, really difficult part is making the package manager aware |
| 12 |
of upstream scm revisions. That can be done later by building upon |
| 13 |
GLEP 54. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives