[splitting the thread]
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Philip Brown<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:25:01PM +0200, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Am 31.07.2009 um 12:31 schrieb Peter FELECAN: >>> All my packages are outside gar. The source code comes from my home >>> directory... >> >> - Is there a specific reason why you are not using GAR? Without GAR it >> is >> hard to do teams, takeover, knowledge sharing, consistent packages, >> etc. > > > I will point out that there are two things, currently intertwined, that > dont neccessarily HAVE to be. that being: > > 1. our "source tree" > 2. our "GAR build system" > > > If there were a simplified published API, for the source tree, that would > accept and interface build systems other than gar, then perhaps Peter F > (and "others" *cough*) would be more inclined to check their stuff into it. > > for example, if there were a flat namespace in the source tree, and if it > were always possible to do > > cd mgar/pkg/softwarename > #and then one or more of > make > make package > (?make clean?) > > Define an absolute top-level "API" that doesnt require GAR, and you might > see more stuff in there, even from the "GAR-o-phobes" > Right now, you have sort of a defacto one from GAR usage. But you havent > formally stated, "as long as you follow [this API], its ok even if you're > not using gar]" _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
