[clc-devel] httpup repositories and unmaintained (next try) [long]
jw at tks6.net
Sat Aug 21 17:33:04 UTC 2004
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 18:54:39 +0300, Jukka Heino wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:59:44 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann <jw at tks6.net> wrote:
> 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.
Well, I think it should. If this is potentionally too much for a
maintainer, he/she shouldn't take part. But it might very well be
possible that I'm way off and that little to none httpup repo
maintainers would want to take part if there are regulations like this.
> Maybe we should more actively recruit new CLC members instead of
> creating a sort of pseudo-CLC?
To me, there's a major difference between the CLC and the people
project: all it takes to be part of the later is the will to be active
(read the mailing list, react on problems); no matter how you behave
etc. This doesn't apply to CLC, where it is more important (at least to
me) to have a working team than the largest collection of ports ever.
It is true that we are still looking for maintainers, as the website
says... but I think this is a different story, IMHO, and the 'people'
collection could even be a good place to recruit them.
> I'm not bashing the idea, I'm just wondering how much duplication of
> tasks this would cause.
None, I think. There are people who don't fit in CLC but maintain ports
(good ports even). Many of them might become perfect members once they
have some experience with CRUX and CLC. The people collection would give
them a place to prove themselves under the eyes of many, show that they
can follow a minimal set of guidelines and are willing to do some work
> 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
This sounds very much like the latest suggestion we discussed:
The disadvantage is that you either introduce a new tool, or that people
still have to go the a webpage to search a port, find its repository,
download the *.httpup file, execute ports -u and add the new directory
to prt-get.conf. Works fine, it's just not obvious, especially to new
Also, I think this wouldn't address the problems with unmaintained,
would it? This is one of the very strong properties of the "one
Just my opinion, though, off for lunch now ;-)
Kind regards, Johannes
Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw at tks6.net
Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
More information about the crux-devel