Re: Atlas proposal [and 1 more messages]
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Atlas proposal"):
> I also have a package "local-archive" that depends on reprepro,
> generates a local signing key on first install, adds that to the apt-get
> keyring and adds a file:/// url in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/.
I think this scheme is a very bad idea. I don't think packages should
be recursing into the packaging infrastructure this way. And I think
automatically adding different local repositories to the apt
configuration is pretty horrid.
> Using a local archive instead of calling dpkg -i directly avoids the
> locking issues. It also allows exporting the archive for a pool of
> systems. No need to build libatlas3gf 200 times for a 200 node cluster.
The build time problem is easily solved by the cluster admin using a
ccache, if indeed we care.
Having said that:
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Atlas proposal"):
> I beg any FTP master reading this to immediately reject any package
> doing something as sick as what you just described.
I don't think this is a very friendly way of putting it. Invoking or
mentioning escalation is not necessary in what was previously a
reasonable and technical discussion.
If you dislike Goswin's idea so much you should set out your
criticisms of it.