[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

Sat Nov 27 19:23:59 CET 2010

Jerome Quelin skrev 27.11.2010 19:11:
+> On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
+>> i agree, the less repositories the easier it'll be.
+>>
+>> however, core is for all the "maintained" packages, extra is for the
+>> unmaintained packages that build ok.
+>
+> what is a "maintained" package? no maintainer, no commits since x
+> months, not buildable? what if we move to packages being maintained by
+> foopkg at packages.mageia.org aliases?
+>
+
+if maintainer db says nomaintainer@ it belong in /extra/
+
+> what are the rules to move a package from extra to core, and vice-versa?
+> who can do it? will it be done automatically? will this imply a rebuild
+> for the package?
+>
+
+If a maintainer picks up maintainership of a package  in /extra/ it will
+be rebuilt and moved to /core/ asap.
+
+if a package in /core/ ends up nomaintainer@, then after a "grace 
+period" (1-3 months ?) it will be moved to /extra/.
+and sometime before RC1 or so, any momaintainer@ package in /core/ will 
+get moved to /extra/ as for a release the /core/ should only contain 
+maintained packages.
+
+> what are the dependency rules? can a core package depend on an extra
+> package? or with a buildrequires?
+>
+
+No.
+If you need to build against a package in /extra/, either pick up the 
+maintainership of it, or try to get someone other to maintain it.
+then it can get into /core/
+
+> and, more importantly: what is the advantage? that is, what does that
+> bring you, except more admin?
+>
+
+QA!
+and enduser satisfaction.
+
+Just take a look on many bugreports in MDV Bugzilla.
+If the report is against a nomaintainer@ package, currently Triage 
+pretty much only can state "thanks for your report, but since it has
+no maintainer, nothing will probably happend" wich is not good answer
+for a person that have taken the time to report a bug.
+
+By having the /extra/ disabled by default, and a popup notifying the 
+user if he enables it that the packages are "unmaintained" he knows
+he's "on his own"
+
+>
+> sorry, consider me not impressed by this idea. or maybe it's just that i
+> failed to see the benefits. please enlighten me.
+>
+
+--
+Thomas
+