> But is there someone stepping up to lead efforts to really start > developing dpkg 2? I've not seen something happening to that effect > on this list. > Well, the first sensible step would be to discuss whether such a thing would be desired; and if so, the basic form of a new package manager. Matt's e-mail and the referenced PDF document are intended to start off those discussions. The PDF is the first time I've ever sat down and wrote, in one document, what I've been thinking about for the last couple of years. While I think it's pretty neat, I'm hoping others will be able to find holes or problems with it -- or improvements they can make. Once that discussion's over, or if there is no resulting discussion (my ideas are that perfect? :p), then I guess that's the time to talk about details of implementation and get a team together. The members of that team may or may not depend, for example, on whether that work is funded or driven by HP and/or Canonical -- on that I don't have any idea or say, being just a humble code monkey :p Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@canonical.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part