IMHO it is a lack of direction rather than lack of man power. If there is a correct road map/consensus of what/how we want to implement, i am sure there are few persons here(including me) who would like to see this implemented and are ready to work on this.
I understand that the current pacman devs are quite busy at the moment with next 3.3 release, but if they can come up with a higher level design of what needs to be implemented, we can start working on the boring part of coding and other details :) . This will also remove the uncertainty of whether the patches will get accepted or will need a complete rework after spending a lot of time on this. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Gerhard Brauer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > i would like to push this again, as a remainder... > Maybe there are now more pacman Devs with the time to continue the work > on GPG signed packages. > We have the threads in 12/2008 here: > http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-December/007761.html > http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-December/007808.html > > I'd have the impression we're on a good way there - but lack of man > power... > > Regards > Gerhard > > > _______________________________________________ > pacman-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev > _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
