[arch-dev-public] The core of Arch Linux - repo reorganization
roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Thu Jul 19 12:13:51 EDT 2007
2007/7/11, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com>:
> On 7/10/07, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at 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.
> > 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.
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)
More information about the arch-dev-public