cvs vs. arch/tla

[Warly]

Steve McIntyre <steve at einval.com> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:36:10PM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>>Thinking about the process of patch maintainance, I found gnu-arch aka tla.
>>...
>>>What do you think? Or should we create a seperate CVS repo for every 
>>>applied patch? Or should every patch be checked in CVS directly and 
>>>maintained there?
>>
>>Hmm, no response is a response, too :)
>
> :-) Sorry for the delay, I'll have a look and get back to you
> tomorrow.

It may become really messy if we just want to keep the stuff as generic
as possible allowing anyone to choose which patch to apply or not.

Shouldn't we applied a basic set of patch, and just have an extra
repository for patches we do not agree on.

I think we should provide a CVS (or tar.gz or whatever, but no distro
specific) version which has what user do not find in cdrecord (mainly
DVD support I guess), so that we will be more likely to become the
default burning back-end.

I can already rename my cdrecord package on Mandrakelinux freedrtools,
and ask front-end maintainers to include the freedrtools support.

How should we name the binary? Freedrecord?

-- 
Warly