Am 22.12.2010 20:26, schrieb Pierre Schmitz: > I think the core repo and its sign-off policy has proven itself to be a > good idea. But we could make a little adjustment to our signoff policy > to solve your filesystem package problem.
Agreed. > [core]: This contains everything you need to boot up, connect to the > internet and install additional packages from e.g. [extra] Sorry for being late on this, but this is what I remember from when we redefined the repos - [current] and [extra] was not completely well-defined, so we came up with this (which is mostly what Pierre said): [core] was meant to be the core of Arch, which was supposed to be on the installer. This means: * Packages that are needed to boot (C library, kernel, init scripts, filesystem, system logger, at least one bootloader). * Packages that may be needed to connect to the internet (dhcp client, wireless management tools, pp(t)p, various common VPN clients) - for installing more packages. * Essential package building: default compiler, fakeroot, other support tools for makepkg * Packages for file system management: mkfs and fsck tools for common file systems (this would include btrfs tools, if btrfs is popular enough). * Packages that do not match any of the above criteria, but that virtually anyone will want or need early in the system setup process. The only one I can think of is openssh. * Dependencies (but not necessarily makedepends) of the above. This was never written down this explicitly, but this is how I remember the consensus we made back then. tpowa and andy were iirc two of the driving forces behind the repository transition, I compiled the initial list of packages. > base group: A smaller subset of [core] that include packages that > should be installed on every Arch system. That was the idea. Apart from wpa_supplicant, this is okay the way it is (wpa_supplicant is afaik still in base, but shouldn't be). > base-devel group: Additional packages needed to build our base > packages. (This group is indeed questionable and one might consider > moving them to [extra] The idea was to run 'pacman -S base-devel' and have all essential support tools for makepkg. I'd keep them in core - at least gcc will stay in core, unless we want to make two separate PKGBUILDs for gcc and gcc-libs. Having them in core is a good idea, as someone might want to do a core install and makepkg something before being able to continue (to compile an important network access tool). > Everything else in core are packages that are not needed by everybody > but required by some to "boot up, connect to the internet and install > additional packages"; e.g. file system packages, firmware for your > wireless card, wireless_tools etc.. Agreed in principle, but I went into the details more above. > I would suggest to change our policy to this: > * packages in the base group and its dependencies still need the usual > two sign-off per architecture One sign-off is implicit by the package builder, so we always had one extra signoff from someone else. I would also only require one sign-off for -any packages, instead of one per architecture. > * sign-offs for all other packages in core are optional; they still > need to enter testing first, but can be moved to core without any > sign-off after 3 days (or one week or whatever) Nice idea. > The install CD would than contain the full core repo. As was originally intended. > What do you think of this proposal? +1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature