On 10/15/2014 02:47 PM, Thomas Oulevey wrote: > Hi, > > On 15/10/14 10:10, Jim Perrin wrote: >> The virt sig folks (and a large thanks to Lokesh here) have been keeping >> the docker packages quite fresh on cbs.centos.org. I'd like to begin >> publishing these via a virt-sig repo, tentatively called >> 'docker-current' or 'docker-latest' >> >> My question is: We have a few other packages such as cockpit, that tie >> into docker, and are linked to atomic. What should be done with them? >> >> >> My initial thinking would be to structure this a bit like SL does >> software collections. Docker would be a stand-alone repository that >> could then also be a part of a larger repo for atomic or other project. >> >> >> Thoughts/opinions? >> >> > > I will just comment about the technical side, as I have no strong > opinion for the content of SIG repositories. > > I think each repo content should be associated to a tag, and we should > look at a procedure to transform a mash generated repo (mash dump all > packages associated to a tag e.g /repos on cbs) to a production > repository (location, signing, etc...). > Agreed. I was thinking about the user/consumer side, rather than production/creation. > In my view decoupling repository creation/koji too much, will make it > hard to maintain on the long run. > > We can have as many destination tags as we want and a package can be > tagged multiple time, so the SIG can decide to depend on an external > repository or to ship the packages in their own repo. > > What do you think? > That works for me. Long-term we may need to look at package ownership/tracking for this. I'm not sure if we need something quite to the extent of fedora's pkgdb, or if it would allow groups(SIGs) to own the packages rather than individuals. -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77