> So far we agreed to have repos per [project] and [~user], though some > propposed to have [parabola-community] or whatever. Do you think > this should be changed? Explain your position, of course.
How having different repos is beneficial (for users or packagers)? I don't see any benefits for it when packaging. It makes unclear where to put a package. As a user, I have to list more repos in /etc/pacman.conf or not find some packages. I don't know a mapping from problems solved by packages to repos. Maybe databases fetched are smaller due to not including some packages there, it's not a problem since fetching them normally is faster than e.g. downloading packages to install. I know two arguments for Arch having multiple repos: they have different quality policies, and some are for testing packages before putting them in stable repos. We don't do these things (although they would be beneficial in some cases), so these arguments don't apply here (and certainly not for completely new packages not replacing other packages). Changing it to have a single repo for all packages not taken directly From Arch would make it obvious which repo to choose and would be simpler. Debian and Trisquel practically have one repo, I never noticed problems with this solution.
pgpscPuK1oFxp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
