1 Big repo vs multiple small ones

Tadej Jane┼ż tadej.janez at tadej.hicsalta.si
Wed Mar 26 20:54:38 UTC 2014

On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 18:20 +0100, Honza Horak wrote: 
> I tried to look at both options from user POV and having more little 
> repos seems to me like a better option, since it would allow him to 
> locate the necessary coprs easily, but he'd have to install the packages 
> in the next step (unless dnf/yum/other tool would be able to do it in 
> one step).

If understood the above paragraph correctly, the main goal you envision
for the Playground repository is better discoverability and ease of
adding COPRs?
I wish the Playground repository also provided some (small) guarantees
about packaging quality that would be enforced with (semi)automatic
review of the packages.

> Also I don't think it is either one or the second way, we should be able 
> to introduce a package, that would include all repositories and that way 
> we could have both ways implemented

In my opinion, trying to imitate "one big repo" with a package that
would enable all (selected) COPRs is not going to help with the
conflicts issue.
If we would try to pursue the "one big repo" route, it would mean
automatically checking for conflicts between existing packages and new
packages submitted for inclusion in the repo and refusing to accept
these packages until the conflicts are resolved. That would make the
user experience better since the users wouldn't be faced with
semi-cryptic messages about unresolved dependencies/conflicts when they
try to install a desired package.


More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list