Re: debian-science repository structure
I suppose to me it makes sense to lay out packages in the repositories
according to whatever makes the most sense from a maintanence
perspective. On other teams, I think this means having all packages
at the same nesting level and in the same directory usually. I don't
see how having the package categorization represented as directory
structure in the repository helps maintanence and it seems somewhat
complicated compared to the less hard to understand 'decorator'
pattern whereby we keep some separate text file (like overrides) that
lists the category assignment for each package for each purpose. I
think using this file we can generate the hierarchical view (perhaps
even as a set of automatic git checkouts or whatever) for anybody who
might benefit from it without imposing it on everybody
unconditionally. This leaves the possibility open to have different
categorizations applied later without interference. Therefore I think
the simplest would be to say that all packages in Debian science go in
the standard spot unless they have strange maintenance needs. Best
regards,
Rudi
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>>> Those are of course valid points, though I still think that is something
>>> that
>>> can be generated from the meta-information that is already available.
>>> Writing
>>> a script for that should be fairly trivial and I'd be happy to do so!
>>
>> Does anyone else has an opinion on this ? Andreas ? Charles ?
>
> I admit I do not really understand the question. What meta-information are
> you
> actually talking about. I've thought we would talk about categorisation of
> a
> package and I don't think that it is in any of the meta information of a
> package
> (except perhaps in the Vcs-* fields *if* we just decided for a category and
> thus
> the problem is recursive). IMHO if we face a package that might belong to
> more
> than one category I would leave the maintainer of the package the decision.
> This is similar to the situation if we have package that might belong to
> Chemestry and Biology: If the package is just maintained by DebiChem we (as
> the
> Debian Med team) just leave it there (and are happy that a group of reliable
> maintainers cares about it). My request for categorisation was based upon
> the
> idea that we might release other CDDs out of the umbrella Debian Science and
> putting packages into categories might easily give the answer what is for
> them. But I admit the concept has some drawbacks.
>
>> Personnaly, I don't care about the format. I care about the content
>> (just like SVN/git). ;)
>
> Well said.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
Git, Hg (Mercurial), and Subversion (svn) hosting over SSH
http://sshcontrol.com/
Reply to: