[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout

[Michael scherer]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:52:16AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:42, Michael scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:26:32PM -0500, andre999 wrote:
> >> Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
> >
> >> >  - for packaging/shipping the distribution
> >>
> >> Evidently easier to package.  (One less consideration.)
> >> As well, the problem doesn't exist in France, so Mageia itself won't
> >> be a target.
> >
> > This is a over simplification.
> > PLF is not only for patented softwares, but also for softwares that
> > have others issues ( DMCA, copyright claim, etc ).
> > So from a packaging point of view, we would still
> > have a separate repository, so the consideration would
> > likely still exist.
> 
> Indeed. But it then shows that it really makes sense to separate
> issues per packaging media (so that end-users may decide on a
> case-by-case basis), provided each issue is not valid worldwide,
> neither uniformely.
> 
PLF has a policy ( enforced by a rpmlint module and a check at upload, iirc )
of explaining why a package is in plf, and let user decide.
 
I think that is is quite important to know why a package is in such repositories,
and later, once we have a better view of what are the exact requirements of mirrors, 
and if this is worth, we can find a more granular system ( ie, filtering for just
2 mirrors when we will already have many others do not seem like a wise idea ).

And so basically, we have 2 groups : 
Users and mirrors.
We push the responsability to users to decide what they want to install.
And for mirrors, we provide them with a simple system to decide. People
who do not care do not care. People who care would likely not spend
days checking every packages. 

> Putting everything under a "tainted" repository will just push the
> problem one step aside. Putting issues separately helps having a clear
> policy, per type of issue (because the problem is different).

Either we have 1 repository, or we have more.

1 per global type of issue do not seem useful. For example, patents
are per country ( or group of country ), despites some efforts to global
harmonisation. The same apply to local laws ( DMCA, etc ). So saying 
"everything patents related go there" do not help much, neither mirrors or 
users.

We could have one repository per country. But that would lead to 
- have a explosion of combinaison ( germany-french-non-us-non-japan-etc )
or 
- duplicate the rpm in each country repository ( and having one 
software being forbidden in one country would requires it to be present
on all others folder, so the growth is proportional to the number
of country on earth ).

And in both case, we would need expert from each country to decide. While
it is already difficult for usual case, this would nearly impossible for
everything. But not doing so would render the classification useless.

So I think that the easiest way is to have 1 repository, to explain why
packages are there, and later, once we found the ressources, to tag them, 
if there is people ready to work on it.

-- 
Michael Scherer