it appears that "keeping an eye out on any changes in the situation" is the
most important part of that explanation - in my experience, that explanation
suggests to me that flashrom-stable will be very short-lived - most new
software projects lose momentum or are abandoned within six months; and that
is even more likely for those which are forks made for purely ethical of
political reasons:
* avconv? (was hyped to replace ffmpeg - it did not)
* avideo? (was hyped to replace youtube-dl - it did not)
* tenacity? (was hyped to replace audacity - it did not)
remember those? of course not; because they never gained traction, because
there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the original upstream code in the
first place
i have to strong suspicion that we will need to revisit this issue within a
year - at that time, i suspect that one or the other will need to go, or if it
is very important software with no alternatives, one (probably the original)
should be kept frozen at the last-known good version
ok, so we still need a more informational pkgdesc, something which distinguishes
it from flashrom - problem is, that last explanation does not help much - all
that implies:
pkgdesc="the lass-capable flashrom fork, but without rust and is not
maintained by a google employee"
when i read that, it tells me "this is a petty excuse for a fork" - maybe those
reasons will become important in the future; but the future is not here yet
if you want to watch both of them closely, go for it; but if it were me, i would
wait until the original upstream is demonstrably unfit for parabola, and
ideally, the new fork has proven itself to be a long-term solution (something
like two or three years old, minimum) - then, the original pkgdesc would be
fine, because there would again be only one flashrom package
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
