| 1 |
* Sebastian Pipping <sping@g.o> schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Hi, |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > what problems do you see w/ licensing ? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > IMHO, each branch simply has to follow the upstream's license. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> i have yet to see easy cases with licensing. |
| 10 |
> i haven't thought about it in detail yet, tough, to be honest. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
well, let's just see if the first realworld case happens and then |
| 13 |
think about it ;-p |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > simply normalize: don't use letters but numbers. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> i don't believe in simple normalization before i have seen it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
well, the right normalization scheme always depends on the upstream's |
| 20 |
versioning scheme. most packages already have some consistent scheme, |
| 21 |
which can be mapped directly. the few really complicated cases |
| 22 |
(actually don't have any at the tip of my head right now) have |
| 23 |
to be done manually. remember that we only take stable releases, |
| 24 |
since we're in the dist maintainer role - not the upstream dev one |
| 25 |
(so, alpha's etc dont matter here) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > b) it's not really a release but just a development snapshot - |
| 28 |
> > that doesnt belong into the main oss-qm repository |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> why doesn't it belong in there? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
because it's not ready to use. that's the primary distinction: |
| 33 |
snapshots are for devs (and maybe testers), not for production use. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> > I've chosen that scheme to make the borders more clear (also for |
| 36 |
> > automatic filtering, etc). In my concept, the vendor is the major |
| 37 |
> > point of distinction, package comes at second, ... |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> i guess we agree to disagree then. |
| 40 |
> i don't think the current scheme promotes cooperation well. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
why exactly ? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
BTW: if you dont like that scheme, you could add some filter for |
| 45 |
automatically rewrites the refnames ;-p |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> > Well, the term vendor here is defined as a party which provides |
| 48 |
> > packages in certain variants. "UPSTREAM" is a kind of meta vendor, |
| 49 |
> > describing the upstreams. "Vendor" is IMHO more generic, since there |
| 50 |
> > may be vendors who aren't actually a real distro. For example, I |
| 51 |
> > myself don't publish a complete distro, but a foundation for clean |
| 52 |
> > building especially for special embedded devices or appliances. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> yes, that's why i proposed "downstream" as a replacement. |
| 55 |
> you don't consider yourself downstream? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
*I* am downstream, right. But the "UPSTREAM"+* branches are what's |
| 58 |
coming from the upstream. Upstream's a special kind of (meta-)vendor, |
| 59 |
where everybody else (downstreams) forkes from. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> > Yes, that's still an open topic. I've chosen to use one big repo |
| 62 |
> > for easier maintenance, but I'm aware of the problem that the |
| 63 |
> > repo might become very fat some day. |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> my point is not about size, only about "users". |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
In which way does my current approach make trouble here ? |
| 68 |
What would be the better approach ? |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
> > I see two options: |
| 71 |
> > |
| 72 |
> > a) split it off into several ones, eg. on per-package basis |
| 73 |
> > and create a system for (semi-)automatic mass-repo maintenance |
| 74 |
> > (not completely trivial when using free git hosters as mirrors) |
| 75 |
> |
| 76 |
> are you aware that splitting it up will reduce the savings in space? |
| 77 |
> say if they all had byte-identical GPLv3 COPYING files that would be one |
| 78 |
> blob atm and N blobs in split mode. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
Right, that's the tradeoff here. But the few COPYING files shouldnt be |
| 81 |
the big issue ... |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
> > b) add an selective filtering system. AFIAK current stable git |
| 84 |
> > doesnt provide that yet - I've added an little patch for that: |
| 85 |
> > http://repo.or.cz/w/oss-qm-packages.git/shortlog/refs/heads/METUX.git.master |
| 86 |
> |
| 87 |
> while i'm not sure about this in detail yet, could it be this loop |
| 88 |
> misses to filter the very first entry? |
| 89 |
> |
| 90 |
> + while (walk && (walk->next)) |
| 91 |
> + { |
| 92 |
> + if (_filter_remote_ref(transport, walk->next)) |
| 93 |
> + walk->next = walk->next->next; |
| 94 |
> + else |
| 95 |
> + walk = walk->next; |
| 96 |
> + } |
| 97 |
> + |
| 98 |
|
| 99 |
you missed the previous lines ;-P |
| 100 |
|
| 101 |
+ while ((transport->remote_refs) && (_filter_remote_ref(transport, transport->remote_refs))) |
| 102 |
+ transport->remote_refs = transport->remote_refs->next; |
| 103 |
+ |
| 104 |
|
| 105 |
cu |
| 106 |
-- |
| 107 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 108 |
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ |
| 109 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 110 |
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: |
| 111 |
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce |
| 112 |
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: |
| 113 |
http://patches.metux.de/ |
| 114 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Archives