[arch-dev-public] Status Report: 2007-11-05
paul at mattal.com
Thu Nov 8 14:52:23 EST 2007
James Rayner wrote:
>> I vote for a), because:
>> 1) I don't think we should make decisions for the TU community. They
>> operate quite well relatively self-sufficiently, and I don't think
>> devs should start putting packages in [community] if they aren't
>> part of that community.
>> 2) It will encourage us to make a choice to commit to some packages
>> as a distro. This is a good thing. I still don't know what packages
>> are okay to put in [extra] and which are not, and I'd like to have a
>> repo I can put any package in that I'm willing to stake my
>> reputation on ([crust]) and later see it voted into fuller support
>> ([mantle]) if there's consensus.
> I kinda agree. I don't think we need to make any change though. I think
> the split works well as it is... from my point of view:
> [extra] - we provide a higher level of 'support' and are typically more
> important packages than those in [community]. (gnome, soffice, openbox..
> more popular things). More support as we have [testing], more integrated
> developer group, priority on bug tracker, more attention etc.
> [community] - lesser level of support. _Typically_ less
> popular/important/more niche (niche packages, special interest, slightly
> less popular)
> Exceptions are allowed, as some developers will maintain some "personal"
> packages in [extra] that may be "better" in [community], as this is more
> convenient for them. Consider it a perk of being a developer.
But you must admit, by doing what you suggest, we aren't doing my
#1. We're making decisions about a repo that really doesn't belong
to us and risking upsetting the delicate balance between TU and
Trust me on this one, it's NOT easy to achieve that. I've been
through two regimes and a mutiny in TU land. (so have you, I believe!)
More information about the arch-dev-public