Ainsi parlait Denis HAVLIK : > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > > + So i don't disagree with the voting systement, but with the content > overlap. > > Well, my point on this is well known: In my opinion, our R&D should take > full responsibility over RPM-voting system, and we should "merge" the > following stuff into one: > > - contributions > - club-contributions > - unsupported I wholeheartly agree, i just don't see why unsupported and club-contributions couldn't be merged into contributions, which is the oldest, largest and more advanced package repository sofar.
Backporting for stables release, as well as taking care of user input, are separate issues IMHO, that should not be confused. > Then R&D could impose whatever methods of automatic quality control they > have on top of peer-reviewing that's inherent to MandrakeClub, and add > automatic rebuilding for different architectures (maybe even for different > versions of the distro?). That would IMO be a full win-win situation for > everyone, but not everyone shares this view. Automatic rebuilding would definitevely be a giant lap. As it is not a mdk-specific issue, but a generic packaging project concern, i think this could be developped as part of youri project (http://youri.zarb.org). Matthias Saou, the guy behind FreshRPM, would be very interested for instance. > Until this happens, we'll have to live with overlap, and I have no choice > but to keep building the MandrakeClub volunteers team separately from the > R&D. Note if club restrict itself on backporting stuff from cooker contrib and main to stable release, and forward new package introduction request to either cooker or PLF (non-free stuff). BTW, i'd be very happy to drop official mdk package we have to backport in PLF sometimes in favour of club. -- All components become obsolete. -- Murphy's Computer Laws n°8
