| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 06 October 2008, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > i am not opposed to the idea of layout changes; its just not my |
| 6 |
>> > personal itch (right now). and quite frankly - i dont see anybody |
| 7 |
>> > else here, whose itch it is... |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> It is mine ;) |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> > our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our repo |
| 12 |
>> > layout is not! |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I |
| 15 |
>> think is better). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What problems are we trying to solve? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1) People commiting things into a shared space that are not widely utilized. |
| 20 |
2) People commiting personal ebuilds into a shared space because it is |
| 21 |
easier to use (syncs by default; no overlays). 2 is a specific subset |
| 22 |
of 1; but 2 really pisses me off (moreso because I have done it and |
| 23 |
felt shitty afterward). |
| 24 |
3) People commiting things into a shared space that they have no real |
| 25 |
intention of maintaining. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Why is the exherbo approach better? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Mostly they are good at telling people to fuck off. I like that. |
| 30 |
I think a tree with 13000 packages in it is less useful when only a |
| 31 |
small percentage are maintained well. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If you want poorly maintained ebuilds you can look to the community |
| 34 |
for that often enough. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> More specific questions: |
| 38 |
> * How fine-grained do you want the repositories to be? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
I expect this to evolve over time. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> * Who controls access? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
In one proposal; Gentoo. Gentoo-x86 would be a combination of a |
| 45 |
number of smaller repositories. Anything in gentoo-x86 would be |
| 46 |
'officially supported.' Running QA tests on the smaller repositories |
| 47 |
presents a problem as well as cross-repo dependencies (most developers |
| 48 |
would need the repositories for their deps installed. I cannot say |
| 49 |
that this is a very good approach but it avoids the whole 'portage |
| 50 |
doesn't have repository support' argument. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
In another proposal; Gentoo. Gentoo-x86 would be one of many |
| 53 |
repositories and the package manager would provide management |
| 54 |
capability. Repositories provided by default by gentoo would be |
| 55 |
'officially supported' in this scheme. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> * How is QA being done? |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
repoman? gentoo-commits? I would imagine similar to now. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> * Who defines what is "officially supported" |
| 62 |
> (right now it is "in the tree, not p.masked") |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
See the above. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
> * What about global data (the non-cache files in metadata, eclasses)? |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
In the former scheme it would need to be shared across all repos that |
| 69 |
are being integrated into gentoo-x86 (possibly its own repo for |
| 70 |
profiles/). |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
In the other scheme each repo would be on its own (mucho duplication). |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> Robert |
| 76 |
> |
Archives