1 Big repo vs multiple small ones

Radek Vokál rvokal at redhat.com
Wed Mar 19 13:35:48 UTC 2014

I actually like the idea of multiple small repos (joined together by a metapackage with all repos as Jens suggested). That way we will have set of repos where individual maintainers or groups of folks (like KDE guys) care to have the packages up2date and functional. I've been playing with Qt5 repo from KDE folks and I don't think we have to clone this repo or setup a new one, I would just reuse it. Also if someone would like to use playground but not get updates from one particular project (say I don't like Slavek's python repo) I can still disable only that single repo and continue playing with others.


----- Original Message -----
> > Today was discussed whether we want one big repo or multiple small ones
> > [1]. Both have their pros and cons, but multiple small ones would solve
> > most of open questions [2].
> > I'd like to see discussion and later votes here, because on meetings are
> > usually only five members of our SIG.
> Partly playing devil's advocate here: what is the difference
> then between current copr's and multiple small/individual repos?
> Is it just better discoverability/filtering and ease of adding repos?
> If copr provided signing and repo packages would there be much difference?
> I guess it is possible for copr deps to be expressed as
> one copr repo requiring another: so kind of meta-packaging.
> Actually I quite like the idea of the flexibility of a repo
> for (enabling) individual copr repos but just trying to understand
> better what it would give us.  In a way I almost feel like we
> need both for greater flexibility, but maybe a repo of coprs
> and a stable ring 2 repo would be sufficient for many use-cases?
> Jens
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks

More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list