[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

[andre999]

Michael scherer a écrit :
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 08:23:59PM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
>    
>> Jerome Quelin skrev 27.11.2010 19:11:
>>      
>>> On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
>>>        
>>> what are the rules to move a package from extra to core, and vice-versa?
>>> who can do it? will it be done automatically? will this imply a rebuild
>>> for the package?
>>>        
>> If a maintainer picks up maintainership of a package  in /extra/ it will
>> be rebuilt and moved to /core/ asap.
>>
>> if a package in /core/ ends up nomaintainer@, then after a "grace
>> period" (1-3 months ?) it will be moved to /extra/.
>> and sometime before RC1 or so, any momaintainer@ package in /core/
>> will get moved to /extra/ as for a release the /core/ should only
>> contain maintained packages.
>>      
> But isn't it in contradiction with the fact that release should not be changed ?
>
> IE, a package could be in core for one release, and extras in another.
>
> What happen to such shrodingerian packages ?
> What happen if this break the self containement ?
> And finally, isn't it redoing contribs/main , leading in the future to the same
> problem we tried to avoid ?
>    

It's simply not workable to base a package's repository on whether it is 
currently maintained or not.
It is much better to classify it on whether it *should* be maintained, 
in order to have a fully functional user's system.
That is, it is in core because it is *core* to a typical fully 
functional desktop or server or developer's system.  Or very useful to 
such a system.
So if such a package is not being properly maintained, there is a 
collective focus to make sure that it is maintained, so that user's 
systems remain functional.

Extra should be just that.  Packages that are extra to a fully 
functional core Mageia system.

It is inevitable that most packages, whatever their importance, will be 
unmaintained - or at least without an official maintainer - from time to 
time.
What we don't want to happen is a repository yoyo - where a package 
bounces from core to main and back - just on the basis of its current 
maintenance status.

And a package should *never* change repositories between releases.
>
>    
>>> what are the dependency rules? can a core package depend on an extra
>>> package? or with a buildrequires?
>>>        
>> No.
>> If you need to build against a package in /extra/, either pick up
>> the maintainership of it, or try to get someone other to maintain
>> it.
>> then it can get into /core/
>>      

Seems like a lot of wasted effort - which could be better applied simply 
maintaining core packages.
> And so, if no one step, wouldn't it be like current mdv, where people will say
> they maintain the package just because someone has to do the job ?
>    

Note that Mandriva is currently overhauling their system - to remove 
much non-core packages from main.
>
>    
>>> and, more importantly: what is the advantage? that is, what does that
>>> bring you, except more admin?
>>>
>>>        
>> QA!
>> and enduser satisfaction.
>>
>> Just take a look on many bugreports in MDV Bugzilla.
>> If the report is against a nomaintainer@ package, currently Triage
>> pretty much only can state "thanks for your report, but since it has
>> no maintainer, nothing will probably happend" wich is not good answer
>> for a person that have taken the time to report a bug.
>>      
> Then why don't we either :
> - decide that non maintened package must be taken care by trainee, as
> part of the training
> - decide to clean them.
>    

Exactly.
>> By having the /extra/ disabled by default, and a popup notifying the
>> user if he enables it that the packages are "unmaintained" he knows
>> he's "on his own"
>>      

That's ridiculous.  We should be in the cooperative spirit of the GPL, 
instead of saying "too bad, you can't depend on Mageia."
> That's already what the GPL say, basically :)
> ( you have no garantee of anything ).
>    

But no garantee doesn't mean no help.
> Yet, I fail to see what benefit it does really bring to users. Most of them
> will enable the media ( because some people enable everything ), will forget
> the message ( because we always forget popup, thanks
> to endless abuse of such popup ),
> and the only benefit is that we could tell "we told you". Not really satisfying,
> and if I was a user, it would not really please me, nor inspire confidence.
>
> We could avoid adding a media by merging this media with core,
> and show the popup when a user install a package without maintainer,
> telling either "beware, this package is currently marked as not maintained, and may
> be buggy. We will try to do what we can to help in this case, but no one is officialy in charge"
> or "we are seeking help on taking care of this package, if you use it often, please
> register on $URL"
>
>    
Not a bad idea.  Why not both messages ?
Really better than an option to exclude seeing officially non-maintained 
packages.
Some packages on my system work perfectly well, but haven't been 
"maintained" for several years.

I would still keep a separate core and extra, where core is core, and 
extra is extra.
(As I described above and in more detail in previous posts to this thread.)

- André