(I'm not going to respond to every point. I think I've made the case I'd like to make, and don't need to subject everyone to our quibbling about who is more correct. It won't resolve anything without someone actually writing a case which establishes precedent for a wide variety of software.)
Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Liane Praza wrote: >> Ah, the value-add location like we had with /usr/sfw/gcc or value-add >> repository of /opt/sfw? > > No, not necessarily in a different path! Just a different *respository* > for the package. Where the package installs into is not relevant (IMO) > to this particular discussion. Sure, but how do I know I'm supposed to install stuff from the other repository? You've just changed "different path" to "different repository". > We have no way to indicate via ARC (at the > moment) which parts make up the "core" bits that users can depend on > (and which most distributions would hopefully therefore include) and > which bits are just random FOSS that may or may not be present, and > which have only the most tenuous level of support guarantees, if any. Eh? Every ARC case publishes stability. That stability goes into manpages. If we can't indicate through ARC what things people can safely build on, there's really something horribly wrong and ARC should deliver tools to publish what it spends so much time talking about. liane
