On 6/20/07, seth vidal <skvidal(a)linux.duke.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:06 -0400, Michael DeHaan wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > So I was wondering if it might be possible to reverse the model a bit.
> > Why not make it so our buildsys and related pieces can easily pull from
> > upstream's scm's.
>
> This seems to be the best way to take advantage of distributed SCM's to
> me, and it allows for having one less resource to manage (i.e. Fedora
> CVS). Right now, I find Fedora CVS a bit annoying as, well, it means
> using yet-another-version control repository -- and lots of seperate
> checkins when I want to push content to 3 seperate repos.
>
> However it does rely on the accessibility of those upstream repos.
> Shouldn't be a major issue. If it's down, no updates.
but things can go away 'forever' and we still want them around.
It seems like no matter which way I turn this around in my head we end
up having to have a complete copy of everything in fedora's pkg vcs to
reliably do what we need to do. Not to mention the issues of firewalls
and the buildsys talking to hosts in $not_okay_countries.
In short, we have to have everything local otherwise we'll be exchanging
one set of problems for larger, more intractable ones. (ie: legal ones
and general confusion-of-location)
Yeah... I kept running into issues like:
Upstream changes SCM (often)
Upstream forks..
No SCM (Tarballs baby... just like our lord Volkerding wants)
No sane SCM (Distributed SCCS)
No open/usable SCM (Distributed SCCS using bittorrent)
Legal fork issues (mp3 code, patented one-clikc method, etc :)
CLA issues (there has got to be someway the CLA will get in the way
somewhere :)).
With a couple hundred packages this might be surmountable.. with tens
of thousands of packages?
Maybe we can get our new Google Overlords to solve this problem with
Google Forge?
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"