[clc-devel] httpup repositories and unmaintained (next try) [long]

Jukka Heino vector at pp.nic.fi
Sat Aug 21 15:54:39 UTC 2004


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:59:44 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann <jw at tks6.net> wrote:

> What I'd like to suggest differs a bit from my httpup mirror service
> proposal I wrote to crux@ a while ago and is rather what Jay Dolan
> suggested: Create a new httpup collection, called 'people' (for example;
> I have no strong opinion about the name of this thing); packager can
> apply to have their repository included in this collection. There are a
> few basic rules to follow:
> - No dups over base, opt or contrib; use a separate repository for this
> - Rather have few but well maintained ports, than many outdated ones
> - React on conflicts
> - subscribe to and read the clc-people-admin (naming comment from above
>   applies again) mailing list
> If a conflict (duplicate) is detected, a notification is sent to a
> clc-people-admin; the packagers are required to resolve it.
> -> there must be an instance to decide if the packagers can't agree on a
>   compromise

I agree that this could be a working solution to the problem of 
distributed repositories. What I'm not really sure about is whether 
there should be a strict set of rules on this new 'people' collection. 
Having to subscribe to and read a whole new mailing list etc. might 
scare off some of the potential repository maintainers. Maybe we should 
more actively recruit new CLC members instead of creating a sort of 
pseudo-CLC? I'm not bashing the idea, I'm just wondering how much 
duplication of tasks this would cause.

The way I see it is that the 'people' collection could be just a central 
mirror with a subdirectory for each repository. That way people could 
immediately see who is maintaining what and over time trust some 
maintainer enough to e.g. add their repository directory to 


// Jukka

More information about the crux-devel mailing list