I go for not creating another repo but group most special purpose repos on [parabola-community] or so.
As mtjm has pointed out there is no benefit on having multiple repos but to make a disctintion on quality. On Wed, 02 May 2012 23:48:18 -0400, Luke T.Shumaker <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought this visualization may help (excluding testing repos): > > quality: |==========High=========| |===Good==| |Anything-goes| > Arch: [core] [extra] [multilib] [community] <AUR> > Parabola: [====libre===] [~*] > > Special purpose: > [cross] [artistic] [elementary] [gnu] [kernels] [social] > I don't know: > [gis] [radio] > > At Wed, 02 May 2012 22:08:32 +0200, > Michał Masłowski wrote: > > > 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 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). > > Right now I view the different repos as having different quality > policies/sources. The user repos are like the AUR in that anything > goes (as long as it is free). However, some of us may actually have > strict standards on the quality, so there is a usefulness in keeping > them in separate user repos lets users say "I trust packages from > [~fauno], but not [~lukeshu], the latter has all unstable beta crap > and half-working installs." (only kinda true :) ) > > [libre] is for high-quality "important" packages that provide free > solutions to problems in Arch's [core] and [extra]. > > As for the "special purpose" repos, I think a few have a place, but > most don't. I think that [cross] definately has a place, similar to > [multilib]. I'm not sure about [kernels]. > > I do think we should have a [parabola-community] (or similar) that > would take over [elementary], [gnu], [social], and others. It would be > where packages from user repositories could graduate to if they are > well maintained and good-quality. > > ~ Luke Shumaker > > > 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. > > 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. + 1 > > Debian and Trisquel practically have one repo, I never noticed problems > > with this solution.
pgpqTcpbkVMNF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
