[Kde-scm-interest] Sysadmin advice regarding Monolithic vs Split repositories.

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07-09-2010 16:04, Tom Albers wrote:
> Dear Scm-interest,
> 
> As promised, the people behind the sysadmin team would like to give advice
> regarding the monolithic vs split repositories issues. We have tried to
> stay away from the community/social issues and focus on the technical
> consequences such a decision involves - such as how to setup the different
> services we will setup.
> 
> Our advise is to use a split repositories approach.

Thank you.

As a packager in a distribution (Gentoo), that has long been waiting for
KDE to split modules, provide complete build and runtime dependencies
for all the apps and make sure applications can build alone, it's very
promising to see someone in KDE land finally providing a document
suggesting a move towards split repositories which should make the above
easier.
If this could also lead to the release of individual tarballs for
applications, it would also help with the frequent moves of applications
between modules and inside modules between different locations -
fortunately moves are now less frequent than in the early 4.X days.


Whether KDE would still release complete module tarballs or not, could
depend in the used space and demand for them. While Gentoo would prefer
the individual tarballs, other distributions might prefer the complete
module tarballs.


> The sysadmin team would like to setup the services real soon now, so we
> ask this list to come up with a final decision about the setup. To be
> clear: whatever you decide, we will implement it to the best of our
> capabilities.
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-scm-interest mailing list
> Kde-scm-interest at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=a79Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----