On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:13:18AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > VCS > --- > Keeping two repositories will be confusing, harder to maintain and a bit > non-sense. > Since nobody complained about git choice, I proposed that git becomes > the only VCS that debian-science uses. Wait a minute. What's wrong with using svn for those who want to? I have some packages that I'd like to put into debian-science at some point, but I'm not about to learn the favourite vcs of the week to do so. > Repository structure > -------------------- > Since there are many concerns about the "category structure" and the > structure proposed by Manuel [1] seems a good one: > > -- debian science > +-- homepage => the website of Debian-science > +-- packages => packages > +-- bar > +-- foo > +-- policy => documents describing the debian-science > +-- taskss => Package "work in progress" > +-- ... > > At the moment, there is no need to split packages by letter, it will > only create a feeling of emptiness. But when we will reach ~ 100 > packages (and I am sure we will), we could reconsider this. I'm not sure why you'd want to split it even with 100 packages. It would be a bit of a nuisance working out the URL to use. The splitting is done in the debian archive, as I understand it, really as a hack around inefficient directory lookup. But the archive would have thousands of entries, not hundreds. -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature