2007/7/11, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On 7/10/07, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
The problem:
We have two official repositories: [current] and [extra]. Historically [current] should fit on a cd-r and includes packages preferred by Judd (and maybe some other "early" devs). [extra] should include everything else.
Today nobody really know why a package is in current or extra. In addition to this we have some dependencies from current into extra and some non-free packages in current. This makes distribution on a cd/dvd quite difficult.
Any last but not least: There is no easy way to install packages from a cd after the system is set up. So I do not think we need to worry about cd-r size.
The only worry is whether [core] from below can fit- if that is ever a problem, then we have bigger problems. :)
The solution:
Imho the only solution is to drop those repos and set up new ones with a clear definition what should be included. This is only a fist proposal. A concrete package list has to be worked out later.
<snip>
Step by step:
1) decide which packages should be in the [core] repo (check dependencies etc.) 2) move everything else into extra 3) cleanup extra; move packages into non-free, community or even aur 4) make sure there are no broken dependencies (including makedepends). It should look like this: [core] <- [extra] ^----------^----[non-free] ^----------^----[unstable] ^----------^----[community]
Ok this is only a first proof of concept and a lot of work has to be done; bu what do you think of this idea?
The above idea seems very logical. I do worry about extra getting a bit large, but we can do something about splitting that later. My only concern rests with the strict dependency tree. I agree that no package in core should depend or makedepend on anything outside of that repo. However, I feel like packages in the other repos could makedepend (but NOT depend) on repos below them in the hierarchy as long as it is clearly noted in the PKGBUILD. This is similar to what Thomas said in his reply.
+1
-Dan
I'm reading all important post-devmeeting threads now (that I've intentionally left unread to concentrate on quick small less important threads first), finally cleaning my mailbox. I'm not impressed that we have 3 threads about repo reorganisation now. So, here's my +1 for Pierre's summary + Thomas' correction about makedepends. I remember this scheme circulating in discussions since March and I'm very satisfied with it. And -1 for Paul's scheme. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)