coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Pierre Joye <pierre.php@xxxxxxxxx>]

hi,

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I would rather see package specifications instead.
>
> Good. Unfortunately, some information is needed before these get finished. Additionally, we'll be finishing this up next week at the on-campus summit.
>
>>> To package binaries is actually a job for the project maintainers themselves
> No, it's not necessarily. The maintainer MAY be the publisher, but those two roles do not have to be held by the same person.
>
> Never happens on Linux, and isn't (forced) to be happening here.

Windows is not linux, it has its constraints (and advantages) that
force developers to actually do the builds as well. Whether these
binaries will be packaged or distributed by them or 3rd party (some
CoApp structure for example) is an open question at this stage.

However, I'm trying to get a clear idea about the goals of CoApp from
a packaging and distribution point of view. That alone will need a
huge amount of discussions, tests, compromises, etc. before it gets
adopted by the projects (read: > 1 year). Everything else is rather a
low priority to my eyes, especially the developer things like build
tools, configuration helpers or unix/bsd layers, where solutions exist
already. My worry is to see CoApp focuses too much on the latter
rather than on the packages/distros part.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org