| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Francesco Riosa <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 12/18/17 14:01, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Whether we remove all files/ or the entire package dir from the repo, |
| 6 |
>> I'd suggest that this become more standardized if we wanted to go down |
| 7 |
>> one of these roads. Instead of sticking something in SRC_URI and so |
| 8 |
>> on, it might be best if files (or packages) be kept in a standard |
| 9 |
>> mirrored location, and the package manager would just automatically |
| 10 |
>> find/fetch them if they exist and extract them to a standard location. |
| 11 |
>> Then any package that uses files/ can do so in a more standardized |
| 12 |
>> way. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Provided exact source of upstream files is kept near the ebuild the idea |
| 15 |
> is tantalizing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
To be clear - I wasn't referring up upstream files. I was talking |
| 18 |
about Gentoo-created files, like patches/etc. There should be one |
| 19 |
standard place for these things vs having them scattered on various |
| 20 |
webservers (including dev.g.o), with no guarantee of retention. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Doing this with upstream files would be more difficult. For one |
| 23 |
they'd use a ton of space, if we're committing to archive them |
| 24 |
long-term (we already mirror them of course, but only for as long as |
| 25 |
they're in the repo). And of course we have packages set to nomirror |
| 26 |
where this isn't even an option. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I guess there are some packages which are legal to distribute but |
| 29 |
where we still host the files ourselves because upstream doesn't |
| 30 |
maintain stable tarballs which would benefit from treating them the |
| 31 |
same way as files/. Those aren't very common. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives