On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 11:37 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 09:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Ralf's change makes sense as well. spot, if you're working on adding
> compat-* guidelines, do you want to work this in or should I add it to
> next week's agenda separately? (There's a review pending on this change
> so I want to keep the first part moving forward.)
No, go ahead. I don't know when I will get to the compat guidelines.
The
question to discuss would be: Under which circumstance are they
applicable and when should the <package>N approach be preferred.
I am inclined to think the <package>N approach to be more versatile and
generally applicable (esp. cases of "fully parallel installable
packages"), while the compat-* approach is aiming at providing "backward
compatible run-time packages" (in particular lib-packages).
Ralf