Sorry for loong quote: wanted to preserve context for others. This was from subject line previously of:
"http://www.opencsw.org/packages/<pkg>: Add GAR build recipe URL to package page?" On 11/18/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Phil, *wave* > Am 17.11.2010 um 18:49 schrieb Philip Brown: > >> >> I guess it depends what your goals are. There would seem to be two, >> mutually conflicting goals: [for db registration of OPENCSW_REPOSITORY] >> >> 1. Make it so packages already registered, do not have to be >> REregistered with new src locations, if we reorganize SVN >> (assumption: if we reorganize, we will do a clean, transparent >> migration of EVERYTHING, rather than onsey-twosy migrate) [ http://blahblah/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/ruby/tr...@11004 becomes pkg/ruby/tr...@11004, or even just ruby/tr...@11004, in db ] >> >> 2. Make it so packages keep the old legacy pathnames. So even if we >> reorganize, old packages keep pointing to old locations. [ http://blahblah/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/ruby/tr...@11004 becomes gar/csw/mgar/pkg/ruby/tr...@11004 in db] >> >> I THINK Dago is aiming for #2. Whereas it seems to me that #1 is >> better. > > Correct. The link should go to the specific revision in the repository > the > package was built from. The reasoning is that releasable packages > should be build by an automatic build system in the future triggered > by copying trunk to a specific directory for releasable packages > which path will then go into the package. The path will be > different than the one leading to the most current build recipep > > For the most up to date link the field can just > be freely editable, inference from a package field may or may not be > correct. It should be set manually by the package maintainer and may > be preset to trunk. Okay. Well, I dont feel strongly that there is one particular "right" answer; I think its mostly just "what do people want". Putting this out there, with a clean subject line so people previously ignoring it, might pay attention now :) If there's no other feedback in support of the shorter method, then I guess I'll start working on implementing the longer method come monday (nov 22nd) _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
