Eduardo Cavazos <[email protected]> writes: > On 04/14/2010 05:35 AM, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > >> This indeed an important issue. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be >> to have both: separate repositories where stuff is developed, and a >> "compound" repository that is synced from the individual ones on a >> regular basis (it should not be hard to automate the syncing process). > > From a Dorodango packaging point of view, I understand that you want > individual packages, one per ported library (irregex, fmt, etc). But > having one 'ported' repository doesn't imply that you have to have one > Dorodango package. An approach is, have a single 'ported' repository, > but have a script or make recipe which can generate the "turn key" > ready to use Dorodango packages. > > Also keep in mind, the ported repository will, once the dust settles, > change pretty infrequently; i.e. whenever the upstream relases a new > version which we want to use. So in light of that, it seems that a > single repository should also be workable. If it was something like 10 > individual projects with heavy development going on, that might be > awkward. > I agree with your reasoning; the reason I advocated multiple repositories is that I want to be able to (re-)create individual packages with specific versions, but it occurred to me that with proper tagging, this is possible with a single repository is well, if a little awkward, IMHO. On the other hand, syncing repositories is at least as awkward, so maybe a single repository is the way to go after all.
Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
