Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] reorganize the repositories

From: Nathan Angelacos <>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:46:08 -0400

On 07/18/2015 05:20 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
>> It might be great! But i think we'll need to keep track of packages
>> purged just in case someone requests a package that were in staging
>> for a period and was purged
> Everything resides in git history. No need to worry about it.

Yeah, but someone asks for ZorkmidMiner2000, checking git history
wouldn't be the first place I'd look to see if we have an old APKBUILD.
See below.
I'm not disagreeing, just saying that its not the first thing I would
think of.
>> About the 'staging' repo: I like this name but I also like NetBSD's
>> idea of *wip* (stands for *w*ork *i*n *p*rogress). Maybe staging
>> could be called *wip* repository.
> It is not exactly "wip". I just felt that testing is wrong name,
> given how many packages rot there for releases. Staging gives clear
> indication that we want to know if package works good enough to move it
> to "stable" repositories.

Agreed on the rot thing. I actually prefer the "unmaintained"
repository we had for a while.

As Natanael mentions, "Main" is BIG - it doesn't exactly scream "small
and simple" and that calls into question secure. But hey - if all of
those packages are actually the latest upstream. Cool.

I also like staging - because it means "its about to go somewhere else"
I'd see staging for edge only - stuff that is up for acceptance.

Community to me says "this is stuff that main developers don't maintain,
so we don't sign off on it, but someone cares enough to keep it updated,
at least every other release or so."

I wonder it we create a 4th repo "abandoned" or "unowned" - That would
give everyone a clear indication of packages that need an owner.
Someone new comes along and says "how can I help?" we point them to
"unowned" and say "take ownership" - they do? it goes to "community."
They prove it works, it goes to "staging." They lose interest in the
project? Back to "unowned"

Probably we should have some criteria for pushing things from community
to unowned. For example: "Upstream source is updated more than 6 months
ago... move from community to unowned"

So as a user, setting my repositories would be:

main - if it doesn't work, I can file a bug report and it will get fixed
staging - same, but there is a stronger possibility it won't work
community - if it doesn't work, I'll almost definitely have to 1) send
the patch, or 2) become the maintainer
unowned - here be dragons. I will almost definitely step up and become
the maintainer.

Of course, I could have read Natanael's proposal all wrong, and he's 
thinking of moving stuff like 
abiword/asterisk/claws-mail/firefox/kamailio/xfce out of "main" and into 
"community." Then Alpine goes back to its "roots" of being a headless 
network appliance.
Received on Sun Jul 19 2015 - 20:46:08 UTC