Re: Why do we keep using META.json for stuff that has nothing to do with installation

* David Golden [2016-02-27 13:25]: > The more interesting question is "why are we using META for installation" Because we can’t go back in time and make historical versions of EUMM/MB *not* use META for installation. End of line. > If the problem is with MYMETA, I have no problem

Re: Why do we keep using META.json for stuff that has nothing to do with installation

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a wider > audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy workaround > where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by

Re: Why do we keep using META.json for stuff that has nothing to do with installation

On 28 February 2016 at 00:06, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > perhaps rethinking "Meta for end-user install purposes" and > "Meta for meta" would solve most of the recent repeated breakages by "oh > downstream doesn't like this new thingymagic" +1 I've been frustrated by this

Why do we keep using META.json for stuff that has nothing to do with installation

Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a wider audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy workaround where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by unicode in META.json. Unicode that doesn't really serve any purpose for an