1 Big repo vs multiple small ones
hhorak at redhat.com
Tue Mar 25 17:33:38 UTC 2014
On 03/21/2014 12:32 PM, Tadej Janež wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 13:06 +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> I wouldn't fight for integration here. If you want to do integration
>> here, then the process is not much different from inclusion of packages
>> into rawhide.
> I disagree. I think there is a quite substantial difference in the
> process. To include a package in Rawhide, it has to go through ordinary
> package review and adhere to the current Packaging guidelines.
> To include a package in the Playground repository it would have to go
> through (semi)automatic review and adhere to a (small) policy/guidelines
> set for the Playground repository.
I don't think we can avoid at least some level of integration testing in
any scenario. Choosing any approach (one big/many small) repo(s) will
need some basic level of checking that some package is not breaking
>>> For the Playground repository I would modify that to:
>>> "Users should always be able to install the latest packages from the
>>> Playground repository regardless of what other packages from the
>>> Playground repository and the Fedora's main repository are installed."
>> I disagree. Not all latest versions of packages must go through
>> Playground repo. In some cases it might be more work than needed. I
>> would leave it up to maintainers with dozens of packages, what they think.
> What did you mean with "not all latest versions of packages must go
> through the Playground repository"?
>> I still don't buy the idea - no conflicts in repo.
> Another point to consider is how to handle user queries when things
> conflict with each other? They will face semi-cryptic messages about
> unresolved dependencies/conflicts when they try to install a desired
> Or, are we aiming the Playground repository to savvy users and
> developers who will know what to do?
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the env-and-stacks