Am 08/20/2012 06:19 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 08/20/2012 03:57 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Kay Schenk wrote:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/porting/index.html
hmmmm...I didn't realize that the winPenPack port is also listed on the
first page, the porting page. I don't remember seeing this earlier
today.
Do we really want to do this? Is this really a "port" or a
"distribution"?
Indeed it's more a distribution, but as discussed the porting page is
already there and has more visibility, so I agree to put both
distributions and ports there.
Maybe we could adapt the title and descriptions to say that the page
lists all third-party packages, including ports and distributions such
as portable versions.
Regards,
Andrea.
OK, I re-read through this thread just now. I guess it was agreed (or
not refuted at any rate) that because the "porting" page was a known
entity and the non_ASF page was not (not even linked anywhere) to put
winPenPack on porting.
Thats what I wrote a few days ago and nobody objected. ;-) So, I've
added it to the webpage.
Yes, we should change the title. Other statements we have in the
Distribution FAQ will need to be changed as well because of this.
We should supply additional information on what the criteria is for
being listed on the newly designed "porting" page.
We could transfer the text from the non-ASF page and adapt it slightly
to fit both puposes:
a) list all binary release work that is done outside the ASF.
b) list all binary release work on platforms others that the, hm, lets
say mainstream.
Marcus
