Package management system support

[bam]

First of all, I would like to thank creators of such a unique... FIRMWARE(?). Thank you guys, It really awesome!
As I understand, you guys have a strong opinion not to add package management support to your system.
I really can't understand it.
Why? Even OpenWRT has support of this through opkg.
I doubt that it worth to consider OpenELEC as more low-level approach than OpenWRT so the packages support could be throw away.
In my opinion this question(and, I hope, your explanation of it) could take place in the FAQ.
Thank you.

[xe]

Its a tricky one to answer in such a way as to really answer for all users.

Its just not what OE is about.

Put it this way, you dont email Pioneer and ask for a package management for their dvd player.

Id like someone to have a go at wording this properly taking into account XBMC addons.

[live4ever]

I'd consider the OpenELEC addons to be a good start to user installable "packages". Like if you prefer the nano editor to the default vi.

[bam]

Could it make sense to have my xmltv grabber's numerous perl dependences as XBMC add-ons?:unsure:
Keep in mind that the grabber don't even related to XBMC, it works entirely with Tvheadend.

[GoAm]

A quick and maybe a really stupid question.
I suppose you have a reason to write protect parts of the OE installation, but why couldn't for example the /lib/firmware folder have write access?
This could help all those having a .fw file (like me ) to be able to get their hardware running without having to try to clone and build their own OE installation or wait for someone to maybe include it in the future.

[xe]

Because it inspires just that... people doing stuff for themselves and not pushing back into OE proper.

I think we have proven we are pretty responsive to adding hardware support. The last few weeks have been focused on supporting stable users but we will be in full on dev mode again soon

[GoAm]

Nice!
Looking forward to it!