| 1 |
maillog: 12/07/2005-20:07:11(-0400): Ned Ludd types |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 00:01 +0200, Stefan Knoblich wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > this has been a little longer on my ToDo list and i think now is the right time to propose it |
| 6 |
> > (before starting to put asterisk-1.2(_pre) stuff into the tree...). |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Things that should be moved: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> s/should/could |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > and everything else telephony related that's missing here. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Why net-telephony? |
| 16 |
> > Some of these things aren't purely (or enterely not) VoIP only e.g. asterisk, zaptel and libpri |
| 17 |
> > (and more stuff being out there that wouldn't fit into a voip only category). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > Comments? Suggestions? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> While as much as we love and depend on these programs. Moving them wont |
| 23 |
> really help anything other than making the tree slightly easier to |
| 24 |
> navigate by end users. This slight gain of category navigation comes at |
| 25 |
> a price in that it invalidates existing packages/GRP sets and causes |
| 26 |
> breakage for users that utilized overlays. One might think is that not |
| 27 |
> what fixpackages is supposed to fix. But sadly the existing fixpackages |
| 28 |
> is flawed in design which renders it pretty much usable to most. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I love these ebuilds but I hope you do not add net-telephony to the |
| 31 |
> tree. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Every post against moving/renaming a package in the tree gets my |
| 34 |
support. Remember, the alternative to a flat portage tree is to keep |
| 35 |
packages in place. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
-* Georgi Georgiev -* The sheep died in the wool. -* |
| 39 |
*- chutz@×××.net *- *- |
| 40 |
-* +81(90)2877-8845 -* -* |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives