On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 04:06:28PM +0100, Sytse Sijbrandij wrote: > >> There will probably also be the need to add configuration points to > >> GitLab to accommodate a different directory structure, we are open to > >> help with this. > > > > Yes, having global constants to be able to change easily the directory > > structure would be great. The main split is probably between Ruby code > > which will go in /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby on Debian systems (vendordir > > in RbConfig::CONFIG) and something like /usr/share/gitlab for various > > files (artwork, and so on). > For the omnibus packages we already have a split directory structure, > see https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/blob/master/README.md#directory-structure > Please let us know what else you need. It is a bit difficult for the moment to say something. I find myself at a stage where I see too many dependencies missing to be able to think right now about the structure of the future gitlab package. We'll let you know soon! > > There is a new version of the dependency graph for GitLab: > > http://people.debian.org/~boutil/gitlab/gitlab_deps20140326.pdf > > (green means in the Debian archive, > > yellow is waiting to be reviewed by the FTP masters, > > other colors mean work needed) > Cool to see there are already a lot of green gems. Are we targeting > the latest version of GitLab or a specific version? It was run with a Gem file dating from 2 months ago. I just fetched the most recent one. The next graph will be generated with it (there shouldn't be much change, mainly addition of gemnasium-gitlab-service and version_sorter). About the version we should target, given our timeframe before the freeze, what would be your recommendation? Best regards, Cédric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature