Re: A packaging scheme...
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:14:00AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > This is exactly analogous to, say, the selection of thread implementations
> > for glibc 2.0. You are still free to use some other thread model if you care
> > to, but the default one that most people write to is the one in glibc that
> > is bound to the kernel threads.
>
> OK, I get it. But the arbitration mechanism in glibc is clear: the maintainer of glibc decides what will be the default thread library and what will be left outside.
>
> It means our packaging scheme would need a maintainer, to take such decisions. This job will require knowledge, diplomacy and authority.
>
> Some cases are simple, like XML (there is only one implementation). Regexps will be more complicated.
Agreed. However, I think that it makes plenty of sense to have more than
one maintainer on a project such as this. There are already projects in
Debian that have overwhelmed the single maintainer model and the project
has responded with things like the X Strike Force, or even the Debian-Java
list (which is a little less formal and integrated). In general, I think
that such a project could be broken up into pieces and design decisions
could be made in a largely diplomatic manner. It would still be advisable
to have some kind of tie-breaking mechanism or a lead designer to keep
a single architectural vision.
--
__________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux
Novare International Inc. A company running Linux
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Reply to: