On 2/10/19 9:25 PM, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 10.02.19 um 17:43 schrieb Christian Grothoff:
>
> IMHO gnunet should be split into repos like this:
>
> - framework ("core")Should framework include the gnunet-gtk-common, causing GNUnet to drag in Gtk+ (that's a bit along my question of merging gnunet-gtk.git with gnunet.git, which few people seemed to like)? Should framework include gnunet-postgres and gnunet-mysql and gnunet-sqlite database routines? Does the framework package then always drag in 3 databases as mandatory dependencies? > - applications > - file sharing > - conversation > - reclaim > - secushare > > I would expect every developer working on one of the applications to > understand he/she needs to install the framework first. (This is much > like KDE is organized.) > > Using a monorepo for all of this will lead to even more configure-flags, > a complex CI setup, ugly merges and complicated bi-secting. > > >> I wrote *good* package maintainers (those that >> put in the effort) > > From a packages perspective: You are wasting my time! I have other > things to do but do split up you f*** package! > > Seriously! When using a huge repo we are shifting the burden onto the > packager. If we provide smaller, reasonably sliced repos, this makes > packager's live much easier. TeXLive should be a warning for us, same as > the gockel's android tools. Then please explain how you want to slice the dependencies on the 3 (possibly more in future, MariaDB says hello) databases and the Gtk+ logic. Note that each of these multiplies if one wants to be able to ship "minimal" binaries: 5 proposed base packages * 3 databases = 15 packages 5 proposed base packages * (gtk/no-gtk) = 10 packages ===================================================== Repositories and TGZ to be created = 25 packages This is not feasible as far as I can tell (and note this is slightly simplified, reclaim/conversation do not have a DB yet, but I'm leaving out details like different audio backends for conversation, with json/without json, gnunet-rest-core, etc. to keep the discussion focused on my main point).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list GNUnet-developers@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
