IMHO it is a lack of direction rather than lack of man power. If there is a correct road map/consensus of what/how we want to implement, i am sure there are few persons here(including me) who would like to see this implemented and are ready to work on this. I understand that the current pacman devs are quite busy at the moment with next 3.3 release, but if they can come up with a higher level design of what needs to be implemented, we can start working on the boring part of coding and other details :) . This will also remove the uncertainty of whether the patches will get accepted or will need a complete rework after spending a lot of time on this. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Gerhard Brauer <gerbra@archlinux.de> wrote:
Hello,
i would like to push this again, as a remainder... Maybe there are now more pacman Devs with the time to continue the work on GPG signed packages. We have the threads in 12/2008 here: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-December/007761.html http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-December/007808.html
I'd have the impression we're on a good way there - but lack of man power...
Regards Gerhard
_______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev