Re: vn-cclan package naming conventions and repository organization

Miles Egan <[email protected]> writes:

> There are some definite advantages of a central repository over a
> collection of links.  Robustness, ease of implementation of support
> tools, mirroring, etc.  Do you think it's just to much overhead?  It
> does seem to work well for cpan.

To add my two cents: I think there is great value to be added by a
central respository.  As an end-user, I'd like to be able to browse
packages by categories or by what implementation they support, etc.

Another huge benefit (at least to me) would be if we got to the point
where we could release packaged versions of all (or most) code in cCLan
for a set of implementations.  Now the end-users know that all these
packages have been tested against each-other and there are no silly
package naming-conflicts or other obvious incompatabilities.  I'm
willing to commit time to make this happen.

Perhaps it could be start of a glibcl (without the g).

Erik.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge