From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65C5F139694 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 07:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30E44E0C14; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 07:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9253E0823 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 07:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [46.246.41.43] (anon-41-43.vpn.ipredator.se [46.246.41.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zlg) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2D983417A1 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 07:41:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20170602130903.334b0d03@katipo2.lan> <20170602185929.4bb0ed21@katipo2.lan> From: Daniel Campbell Message-ID: <78bebefd-359a-d6fe-f995-029a4189fab0@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 00:41:45 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170602185929.4bb0ed21@katipo2.lan> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wdWD2cMCiS59EVqK1TsG9Wh2pg9Aqw3KT" X-Archives-Salt: 943875f2-a2d3-47bc-a18d-ea01ce09ced7 X-Archives-Hash: 5c51af70bd8cf393a4e819b41fcf1e0e This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --wdWD2cMCiS59EVqK1TsG9Wh2pg9Aqw3KT Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="7NRFOv06uUKo9fG8VN7ql4mk02V26eM3I"; protected-headers="v1" From: Daniel Campbell To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <78bebefd-359a-d6fe-f995-029a4189fab0@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml References: <20170602130903.334b0d03@katipo2.lan> <20170602185929.4bb0ed21@katipo2.lan> In-Reply-To: <20170602185929.4bb0ed21@katipo2.lan> --7NRFOv06uUKo9fG8VN7ql4mk02V26eM3I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/01/2017 11:59 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:36:24 -0700 > Daniel Campbell wrote: >=20 >> +1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be= >> movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD? >> Slackware? Where do we draw the line? >=20 > I'd say "as need be". Here we have a few extra benefits from using a > debian identifier that aren't strictly related to "package mapping". >=20 > Its also easier for third party services to use our use of debian > identifiers to produce the other mappings for us where known ( that is,= > non-gentoo entities can maintain a mapping of debian-to-foo, and we can= > trivially hook into that by using the debian-id as the identifer ) >=20 >> Will developers be expected to treat this like a mandated element? >=20 > I'd imagine not, given not everything in debian exists in gentoo, or > vice versa. >=20 > Similarly, I don't think there are any mandates that the other values > of remote-id be populated, only that its *encouraged* because that data= > provides utility to an end user. >=20 >> If >> not, which team will have authority to touch package metadata to make >> this change? >=20 > I'd suggest it should stay within the controls of the package > maintainer for starters, where individual maintainers can provision it > as they feel fit, and we can review our stance on this later if we want= > to make it a tree wide consistent thing. >=20 > Partly because individual maintainers are more likely to understand > correctly how equivalent their dists are to the referenced debian one, > and be more equipped to decide whether to include/exclude a given ref. >=20 That sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks for clarifying. --=20 Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 --7NRFOv06uUKo9fG8VN7ql4mk02V26eM3I-- --wdWD2cMCiS59EVqK1TsG9Wh2pg9Aqw3KT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgIn+0tMDW9PQWDLnASQOlFA54XAFAlkyaDkACgkQASQOlFA5 4XAKWRAAjQzn19G2o8n9x0eiev05RHEGcF8pWzuJiMZ7hPxoM/s+P2a7ZBpZlK0X WJYtiljMoIPHIV1ofDJReJM9HU6s+0bBLpti9NqsTJpN+S4fDHdhTC/ZhAjOnGDx DdVQXjbtotkl1NA2kzn/v8JqM5OyKlMLWaD8gBcjTV9/wJQ6Lv4V7ZXEcLjG7tPx 7LJXgj0iUMX70H7wUosuSZ7iQtk5Sx9f9/lphk5tSLy4XUZePjr1KCKtx6wdbeEd 2Z+SjNJLGY6lgiIIwSbWxdRNS75vLXmAG0CK3i3CLmmf1MsxK9IK2c4XDCv+o2xN aSaVwY8p8FhBvSb4Qpo2PsD5GsWHpUoxTUk/QXiy4KegDJdx9vOhfjfeJi+xIcJu LZ9IbB9fsWeYvCdLHigBu6gcekX1yo20EbGHBrDcTpQbfekFW6imyezJF87naSbl 5rneAI9mcTENwAMnNSezg305Y/s9V4f3KiqcarvPRuRQSlrEgMHrfAkejZyYBo9i 7evOf7SLMqczEiJEul8sJtk7w5hwTjJm3c9mJwV+Qusi50MZ0T3TXpQjNRQlOeVi cqU+AiW04W46Qh+RNPCt0Dw5ERA3bcs64T3G/mALh1hoi+KHAl0+PwI5uP9JgpU/ 7FNRzIPuwkJ7PZdc/fo0/YLlyCxhZ+XPTF6K7zuILnf7ayHQS0Q= =onG7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wdWD2cMCiS59EVqK1TsG9Wh2pg9Aqw3KT--