[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: private debian pools

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Nick Phillips wrote:

> On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 10:48  am, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > I do not agree with you for different reasons. First of all noone
> > forces
> > people to add private archives to their sources.list. If users do that
> > they should know that things can break more easily. Sometimes private
> > archive are really usefull for pre-testing pkgs before they enter
> > debian.
> And sometimes third-party archives are useful because a third party has
> the resources and inclination to look after something we don't (yet).

I agree.

> Are you seriously saying that you don't want this to be made more
> reliable because "no-one forces people" to use such archives, and "they
> should know that [if they use these archives] things can break more
> easily"?

What I understood from your message is that you would not like to see
around too many private archive because of Debian providing a full system
to build them, am I right or I misunderstood something?
(because of possible breakage and so on..)
The contents of private archive is often (if not always) marked as
experimental/unofficial and yes I am serious when I say users should know
what can happen adding private archives. Just look at www.apt-get.org and
you will notice how many are marked unofficial/experimental.. I do not
believe that users cannot read that.

> Exactly which bit of trying to make things work better do you think is
> a bad idea?

>From your previous message:

>I dread to think how many versions of things like
>(all mutually conflicting, and all required by something you *really
>need*) we'll end up with if people are easily able to maintain separate

This could be a problem that raise up only if the archive/pkg maintainer
is not keeping track of what is going on around. /me points out how much
duplicate work has been and how many redundant entries are mentioned on

My point is that I would like to be able to maintain easily my archive.
most of pvt archive provides just one arch and/or one/two releases. I
maintain all 3 releases and for like 6 archs with autobuilders and so on
and anyway people should be able to choose appropriate tools to handle
their archive according to what they want to provide. As i see it
now not having dinstall packaged is some sort of limitation to users (I
do not exclude myself from the list) even if it is available via cvs (as
pointed in another message of this thread).


Reply to: