1 Big repo vs multiple small ones

Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com
Wed Mar 19 14:39:28 UTC 2014

----- Original Message -----
> 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.

Well, I'd even go further and don't call it repo but just collections of
coprs, installable via Software Installer. I know, there's one (for some)
huge disadvantage - not usable with Yum but for the target audience... 
As far as I remember, Hughsie was talking, that he's trying to figure this
out for the installer.

> Radek
> ----- 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
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> 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