Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gentoo-x86 migration to repo-per-package

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 20:55 Sat 06 Aug , Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Everything you have mentioned here was previously covered in the 
> discussions about Git conversion models. Please consult the history of 
> this list, as well as the -scm list. Additionally, a large discussion 
> about the pros and cons of all 3 models (package per repo, category 
> per repo, single repo) was had at the GSoC mentor summit last year, 
> and a number of the core Git developers were involved in the 
> discussion.

While noting the above [1 and its thread], I'd also like to point out 
that git submodules are conceptually a good fit but the implementation 
is lacking. Two examples:

- Creating new submodules requires administrative rights on the server. 
You can't just add one and push it up. This could conceivably be fixed 
by a hook that ran a specific privileged command to add a submodule, but 
I'm not really sure how or whether it's currently possible given the 
times available to run hooks.

- What we'd really want with submodules is to have the primary object 
storage shared in the master repo rather than in the submodule. That way 
we'd benefit from compression across packages, and furthmore, package 
moves wouldn't duplicate history.

If you're interested in fixing the above problems as well as the ones 
that exist regardless of repo format (linked on the main tracker bug 
[2]), then submodules could become a better option.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

1. 
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-scm/msg_98932c55ec10fcc5445ab950e62b12dc.xml
2. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333531


pgp7n15SHaMHz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/icon-theme

[Markos Chandras]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 08/08/2011 05:58 μμ, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 of August 2011 20:32:32 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 08/02/2011 09:20 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Hello fellow developers,
>>> 
>>> I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual
>>> package for all the icon-theme packages. According to this
>>> bug[1], it seems like pcmanfm, and possible other applications
>>> too, require an icon-theme to be present, no matter which one. So
>>> I think it would make sense to create a new virtual package to
>>> include all the existing icon-themes.
>>> 
>>> ++: Avoid ugly dependencies like || ( x11-themes/foo-icon-theme 
>>> x11-themes/bar-icon-theme ... )
>>> 
>>> --: Not all packages include the same icons so users may end up
>>> with missing icons for some applications. However, most icon
>>> themes should include all the basic icons.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376309
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> since whatever gets added to the virtual should be at least almost
>> up to date with the spec, and provide the most common icons
>> 
>> virtual/freedesktop-icon-theme for name, just my opinion... 
>> http://standards.freedesktop.org/ as HOMEPAGE 
>> freedesktop-b...@gentoo.org as maintainer
> 
> ++
> 
> virtual/freedesktop-icon-theme is a better name IMHO as it's what
> this virtual icon theme actually is - theme compliant with
> freedesktop standard (so that can be used by applications claiming
> support like chromium, KDE, Gtk apps), not just some icon theme (as
> any instant messenger icon set would fall under "some icon theme"
> category for instance).
> 
Yes I will fix the name and the typo that was mentioned in another
reply. I will commit the virtual tonight.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=lLna
-END PGP SIGNATURE-