[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout

Sat Dec 11 14:16:33 CET 2010

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:52:16AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
+> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:42, Michael scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:26:32PM -0500, andre999 wrote:
+> >> Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
+> >
+> >> >  - for packaging/shipping the distribution
+> >>
+> >> Evidently easier to package.  (One less consideration.)
+> >> As well, the problem doesn't exist in France, so Mageia itself won't
+> >> be a target.
+> >
+> > This is a over simplification.
+> > PLF is not only for patented softwares, but also for softwares that
+> > have others issues ( DMCA, copyright claim, etc ).
+> > So from a packaging point of view, we would still
+> > have a separate repository, so the consideration would
+> > likely still exist.
+> 
+> Indeed. But it then shows that it really makes sense to separate
+> issues per packaging media (so that end-users may decide on a
+> case-by-case basis), provided each issue is not valid worldwide,
+> neither uniformely.
+> 
+PLF has a policy ( enforced by a rpmlint module and a check at upload, iirc )
+of explaining why a package is in plf, and let user decide.
+ 
+I think that is is quite important to know why a package is in such repositories,
+and later, once we have a better view of what are the exact requirements of mirrors, 
+and if this is worth, we can find a more granular system ( ie, filtering for just
+2 mirrors when we will already have many others do not seem like a wise idea ).
+
+And so basically, we have 2 groups : 
+Users and mirrors.
+We push the responsability to users to decide what they want to install.
+And for mirrors, we provide them with a simple system to decide. People
+who do not care do not care. People who care would likely not spend
+days checking every packages. 
+
+> Putting everything under a "tainted" repository will just push the
+> problem one step aside. Putting issues separately helps having a clear
+> policy, per type of issue (because the problem is different).
+
+Either we have 1 repository, or we have more.
+
+1 per global type of issue do not seem useful. For example, patents
+are per country ( or group of country ), despites some efforts to global
+harmonisation. The same apply to local laws ( DMCA, etc ). So saying 
+"everything patents related go there" do not help much, neither mirrors or 
+users.
+
+We could have one repository per country. But that would lead to 
+- have a explosion of combinaison ( germany-french-non-us-non-japan-etc )
+or 
+- duplicate the rpm in each country repository ( and having one 
+software being forbidden in one country would requires it to be present
+on all others folder, so the growth is proportional to the number
+of country on earth ).
+
+And in both case, we would need expert from each country to decide. While
+it is already difficult for usual case, this would nearly impossible for
+everything. But not doing so would render the classification useless.
+
+So I think that the easiest way is to have 1 repository, to explain why
+packages are there, and later, once we found the ressources, to tag them, 
+if there is people ready to work on it.
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+