On 10/29/19 5:35 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > >> I think we should probably start adding a few packages to that list. > > Makes sense, we have the functionality so we might as well use it. The > question is what criteria to use. :/ >
On that note, I'm in the middle of rewriting AIF-NG[0] to be a lot
easier to maintain, understand, etc. (Plus it broke, and it needed to be
rewritten anyways, so here we are.) (For those unfamiliar, basically a
Kickstart equivalent for Arch.)
Would that package name ("aif" or "aif-ng") be okay? The *full* name is
"Arch (Linux) Installation Framework, Next Generation" but that wouldn't
be in the package name, just the description. Is this enough segregation
to be okay?
(My hope is to get it good enough to be considered as adoption INTO an
official package eventually, if that clarifies the case.)
[0] https://aif-ng.io; docs haven't been updated for rewrite yet as
focusing on code first.
--
brent saner
https://square-r00t.net/
GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
