[packman] OBS 2.x and new repository layout

todd rme toddrme2178 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 31 04:39:07 CET 2010

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Pascal Bleser
<pascal.bleser at opensuse.org> wrote:
> On 2010-12-31 01:43:22 (+0100), Marcel Gmür <packman at ammler.ch> wrote:
>> You could also "safe" some build power by simply not building
>> packages, which are already built and maintained at obs, e.g. I had
>> some zypper dup issues with p7zip or some games like openttd. Are
>> those 2 packages really the only ones?
> Oh, no, there are many more than those.
> There are basically two "positions" on that:
> 1) yes, you're right, it's pointless and there is much more build power
> on build.o.o (also a lot more packagers though ;))
> 2) we had those packages first, it's not ours to remove, and the people
> who are using the packman repository also use packman because of those
> (and only want to add one big repository instead of a dozen of
> repositories from build.o.o)
> I'm probably exaggerating position 2, and it's not difficult to find out
> which one I'm endorsing *cough*, but it's a somewhat loaded discussion.
> cheers

Is there a way you could take advantage of the extra power behind the
"official" obs instance?  If we are talking about splitting up the
repository anyway, what about splitting off all the packages that
comply with the OBS rules, and building them on the official OBS
system?  You can then save your own systems for only building packages
that you cannot build on the official OBS because they violate one or
more of the rules.  It would be similar to the Ubuntu method of
splitting packages based on licensing issues, with a "safe" packman
repo hosted in the official OBS system and an "unsafe" packman repo
hosted on your system (those or probably bad names).

More information about the Packman mailing list