> Is anyone on infrastructure@ aware of what's going on in [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Not from what I see on the subscriber list, which is why I have suggested on
more than one occassion that such participation is important.

> Apparently, AFAICT, that list is supposed to allow for Java-based
> distribution of software.  Other than that, I'm completely lost as
> to what that list is for.

Eventually, it would be desirable to have a user-friendly tool that is
capable of picking up, for example, httpd source, tomcat, and other parts,
and doing a platform-specific install.  But the tool is "someone else's"
problem.  The only thing that the repository needs to do is provide a
non-fragile URI space for artifacts, of which files and, eventually,
metadata are both examples.

> Do any 'core' infrastructure people need to get involved to help guide
> what's practical or not?


> With a quick perusal of [EMAIL PROTECTED], I got the sense that they
> might be out in la-la land

Agreed.  The discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] was getting into tool areas
that should be relatively orthogonal to the repository.  There are three

  - URI space
  - metadata
  - tools

The first is the main issue that the repository needs to address.  The
second is an area where after we have decided upon the URI space, the tool
groups could use the repository list as a gathering place to seek common
ground.  And then there are tools, which belong elsewhere, but use the
repository.  Some people are jumping ahead to tools before the URI space is

> The people advocating a file layout *only* get my uninformed +1.)

I think that most people recognize that the "file layout only" approach to
the URI space is necessary.  meta-data is present in the URI space, and can
be implemented with a static file.  Even if we want to key off the
user-agent for meta-data, that can still be served with static content in
the file space.

        --- Noel

Reply via email to