[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

Thu Dec 2 08:20:15 CET 2010

Maarten Vanraes a écrit :
+>
+> Op woensdag 01 december 2010 21:54:48 schreef andre999:
+> [...]
+>
+> allthough interesting, this thread is about mirror layout; and is not about
+> removing the distinction between supported packages and not. (this wasn't all
+> that clear to me at first.)
+
+I'll discuss further down why I think that this is a critical part of 
+the question.
+>
+> i do understand that you think other methods of having the distinction might
+> not work; i have reservations myself that way. (i do feel the disctinction is
+> important.)
+
+Glad to see that you understand my concerns.
+>
+> i also see that mirror layout should be as easy as possible for mirror admins.
+
+Agreed.  However keeping an extra set of repositories for core packages 
+would just add a few extra directories (without changing the number/size 
+of their total content), thus have little impact on mirror administration.
+
+However "tainted" repositories, being optional, would be more problematic.
+Especially, as others pointed out, for the larger multi-project mirror 
+sites, where admins are already distracted by many other demands.
+
+On the other hand, I see the point of adding "tainted".
+Since it is for packages that are likely to be problematic in *some* 
+countries, I imagine that relatively few of these larger mirror admins 
+would feel the need to exclude "tainted".
+(And for the same reason my quibble about choosing a more neutral name, 
+such as "restricted".  Or maybe even "problematic".  For countries where 
+these packages would be acceptable.)
+
+In any case, rsync is a pretty straight-forward application.
+>
+> however, looking at the big picture, i think that logically it's sounds to
+> have one purpose to one thing; and thus for the mirror layout; only the mirror
+> admins should be looked at; the viewpoint of a user _should_ not really
+> matter.
+
+I agree that the user viewpoint is not of major importance : I see that 
+as just a positive side effect.
+
+I am trying to look at the big picture.  And perhaps I haven't been very 
+effective at expressing my concerns.
+In my mind, we should always consider important side effects of major 
+changes.  And removing separate "core"/"extra" (or "main"/"contrib" 
+repositories does have an important side effect.
+Realigning "core" so it is really core should very much help packagers, 
+as well as maintaining an important distinction.
+
+Note that if, down the road, we find another effective method for 
+distinquishing core / non-core, it is relatively simple to transfer 
+packages in "extra" to "core".
+But if we eliminate the parallel set of repositories, and find later 
+that we have a problem giving priority to core packages, moving in the 
+other direction would be a much more difficult process.
+
+The suggestion that we only transfer to Mageia packages that we see as 
+important to keep, sounds like a very good approach.
+This would also facilitate maintaining the core / non-core distinction.
+
+I'm not trying to say that defining core / non-core in detail is a 
+trivial process.  But it is in the interest of Mageia to define it.
+
+I realise, at least at first, that things will be more difficult for 
+packagers.  But firmly believe that this will be largely alleviated by a 
+careful triage of existing "main" and "contrib" packages.
+Thus I am more than willing to put in a lot of effort, since it will 
+have an important impact on the future of Mageia.
+
+I also realise that many of those proposing eliminating a set of repos 
+have a lot of valuable experience.  And I'm sure that if/when we can 
+agree on this concern, that we will be able to work very well together.
+And I look forward to becoming a Mageia packager.
+
+another 2 cents :)
+
+- André
+