| 1 |
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:23:34 +0200 |
| 2 |
Sebastian Pipping <webmaster@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Now please ask questions and let us know what you think. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Here's an alternative idea: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
* Move the repository information into the overlays themselves. Require |
| 8 |
overlays to provide a file containing the description, homepage, |
| 9 |
owner information etc. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
* After a certain amount of time, switch new versions of layman to use a |
| 12 |
new file that's generated from these. Any overlay that doesn't |
| 13 |
contain such a file is clearly unmaintained and should no longer be |
| 14 |
supported. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
* Also use this opportunity to clean up the repo_name vs layman name |
| 17 |
mess: any repository that gets it wrong should not be included in the |
| 18 |
new layman file. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Sounds like a perfect opportunity to make sure that everything in |
| 21 |
layman's still actively maintained and developed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives