[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Moving pkgsrc-wip away from SourceForge
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 10:38:52AM +0200, Thomas Orgis wrote:
> Am Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:28:26 +0530
> schrieb Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost>:
> > pkgsrc is a "packaging spec". Revision control requirements for such spec
> > are much simpler than those for the package itself. pkgsrc is not a
> > "development" per se. Hence the notions of distributed development etc.
> > are an overkill for pkgsrc.
> Let me chime in here with experience from a similar project: I happen
> to be involved in Source Mage GNU/Linux, which is a source-based
> distribution. Meaning: It is a large set of small files that contain
> "packaging spec". Currently, that's around 41000 files, all together
> 372 MiB on disk (inflated because of file system sectors) in a git
> checkout. The whole repository (the .git directory) is 169 MiB.
I believe individual contributors (about whose ease of contribution the
discussion is going on) are not required to deal with such large size.
I do not know the nature of files in packaging spec you describe, but in
pkgsrc, it's typically Makefile, distinfo, PLIST and Descr and in some
cases patches. With a typical contributor focusing on 1 package at a time,
I really doubt whether it compares with the scale you are talking about.
I use both CVS and git, though not so proficient with the latter. So far
in my usage, which is for closely knit groups, with a centralized
development model, I always found CVS to be simpler. Large distributed
development might have different needs which CVS may not meet. Question is
whether we look at packaging spec to be so.
Also, I wonder whether git has been debated for use with main pkgsrc,
kernel, base etc. and what various contributors' opinions on the same are.
Main Index |
Thread Index |