[Dev] Repo situation Was: Re: Votation to put [games] repo on our distro

[Joshua Ismael Haase Hernandez]

I go for not creating another repo but group most special purpose repos
on [parabola-community] or so.

As mtjm has pointed out there is no benefit on having multiple repos but
to make a disctintion on quality.


On Wed, 02 May 2012 23:48:18 -0400, Luke T.Shumaker <lukeshu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I thought this visualization may help (excluding testing repos):
> 
>    quality: |==========High=========| |===Good==| |Anything-goes|
>       Arch: [core] [extra] [multilib] [community] <AUR>
>   Parabola: [====libre===]            [~*]
> 
> Special purpose:
>   [cross] [artistic] [elementary] [gnu] [kernels] [social]
> I don't know:
>   [gis] [radio]
> 
> At Wed, 02 May 2012 22:08:32 +0200,
> Michał Masłowski wrote:
> > > So far we agreed to have repos per [project] and [~user], though some
> > > propposed to have [parabola-community] or whatever. Do you think
> > > this should be changed? Explain your position, of course.
> > 
> > How having different repos is beneficial (for users or packagers)?
> > 
> > I know two arguments for Arch having multiple repos: they have different
> > quality policies, and some are for testing packages before putting them
> > in stable repos.  We don't do these things (although they would be
> > beneficial in some cases), so these arguments don't apply here (and
> > certainly not for completely new packages not replacing other packages).
> 
> Right now I view the different repos as having different quality
> policies/sources. The user repos are like the AUR in that anything
> goes (as long as it is free). However, some of us may actually have
> strict standards on the quality, so there is a usefulness in keeping
> them in separate user repos lets users say "I trust packages from
> [~fauno], but not [~lukeshu], the latter has all unstable beta crap
> and half-working installs." (only kinda true :) )
> 
> [libre] is for high-quality "important" packages that provide free
> solutions to problems in Arch's [core] and [extra]. 
> 
> As for the "special purpose" repos, I think a few have a place, but
> most don't. I think that [cross] definately has a place, similar to
> [multilib]. I'm not sure about [kernels].
> 
> I do think we should have a [parabola-community] (or similar) that
> would take over [elementary], [gnu], [social], and others. It would be
> where packages from user repositories could graduate to if they are
> well maintained and good-quality.
> 
> ~ Luke Shumaker
> 
> > As a user, I have to list more repos in /etc/pacman.conf or not find
> > some packages.  I don't know a mapping from problems solved by packages
> > to repos.  Maybe databases fetched are smaller due to not including some
> > packages there, it's not a problem since fetching them normally is
> > faster than e.g. downloading packages to install.

> > Changing it to have a single repo for all packages not taken directly
> > From Arch would make it obvious which repo to choose and would be
> > simpler.

+ 1

> > Debian and Trisquel practically have one repo, I never noticed problems
> > with this solution.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20120504/c01fe2d1/attachment.sig>