On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:10PM +0200, (int) Eero Tamminen wrote: > ext Mikhail Sobolev wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:47:07AM -0500, Levi Bard wrote: > >> Comments: > >> * Is it necessary to separate each package into source/armel/i386/etc? > >> Why not just display the package name (e.g. xmaeme), perhaps with a > >> link to click to view the contained files, and/or an asterisk if > >> there's no source? Is there any situation in which, say, the source > >> component would be promoted, but the armel component wouldn't? > > > > No, it's not. And my original implementation (non-released) was doing > > exactly that. However when I looked at it, I thought that there could > > be people who would rather have such a flexibility. > > Why? Because in this particular case I believe more flexible is better than less flexible :)
> > I do agree with you with respect to sources, however as for different > > architectures, the situation is a bit different: one architecture could > > be better supported than the other, so... > > I think it's better that they all are in sync. That creates less > confusion when people test first their package against some dependency > in one architecture and then against another architecture. If the other > architecture has another version of the dependency, are the problems > because of the architecture or dependency version change? This becomes way too complicated. :-/ What if a developer does not really care about x86? -- Misha
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
