[packman] OBS 2.x and new repository layout

Pascal Bleser pascal.bleser at opensuse.org
Fri Dec 31 13:15:02 CET 2010

On 2010-12-30 22:39:07 (-0500), todd rme <toddrme2178 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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

No, probably not, at least not for the stuff that may not be hosted
there ^^

> 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).

Yes, bad names, but I see your point :)

Yes, of course, that would make sense. But as explained, not everyone in
the team has the same opinion on that.
Some think that the current approach on build.o.o to have many, many
repositories split by purpose/domain is awful and that Packman currently
provides the only solution to that issue, as it is a single repository
that ships lots and lots of packages (of all sorts).

I respect that opinion too, even though it's not mine, but that's why
I've started this thread, to weigh the pros and cons of each approach
and take a possibly educated choice based on that.

Arguably, Tumbleweed might be a solution to that concern, as it will
provide a "rolling repository" approach for openSUSE, and then we will
have that "big repository" on build.o.o as well.

  -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser at opensuse.org>
  /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill
 _\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011, http://fosdem.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.links2linux.de/pipermail/packman/attachments/20101231/d971c736/attachment.sig>

More information about the Packman mailing list