Web lists-archives.com

Re: duprkit User Repository




On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:36:45AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 11:02:35AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> In such a large community of volunteers it may not be enough to propose
> something that is only marginally better because the cost (even just in
> cognitive terms) and effort required for so many individuals to overcome
> inertia is relatively high.

Linus said that "Talk is cheap, show me the code."
Now I have shown the code and nobody read that.

The single-file format is not mandatory, and two convertion tools
enables zero-cost convertion:
https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/fold
https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold

And the prototype implementation is compatible to the traditional debian/
directory. See https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection/tree/master/rover-traditional
for the example.

BOTH single-file format and traditional format are supported. People
could choose and use what they like.

I admit that I'm quite fond of the proposed single-file format, and
hence didn't mention and compatiblity with traditional format in design.
 
> I am not trying to discourage you from your effort, but rather advising
> you that the chances of success would improve if you address the
> principal obstacles to adoption in a holistic way.  (As I already
> pointed out, your current approach misses a great deal.)

What else can I do? Both traditional and single-file formats  are
explicitly supported now.