About subversion (or other version manager), the idea was to use it to have backups and history, and commit messages could be used for changelog. The point raised, was that this type of use will quicly take a very huge size and we can afford that.
So another solution have been proposed based on a backup of a package when replaced, with only two backups max per package.
Changelog will be filled by the web interface directly (for now it's edited manually).
About packages posted on the web interface (into a local cache) :
- 3 trusted users that mark the package as tested will automaticaly make the package go to the repo (FIFO indead, because repo directly could cause missing dependancies but it's the main idea).
- A trusted user (maybe more trusted) could push it to FIFO before 3 trusted users have marked the package tested if the package is not famous and is not very tested by our guys. Is also can be used if we know it's only a .desktop changed in the package or something like that
- regular users should be able to upload package, but the package must conform to our rules. It will help new packagers to make good package. (It's not that hard ! I regulary make some packages on my system that conform to Zenwalk rules, even if I not always submit them because it's a bit too complicated and too slow to submit them in Zenwalk).
- custom repo with packages not conform to our rules will not be hosted in this system. Let's don't build a linuxpackage.net site with poor package quality.
Borromini, can you tell us (or me if others already know) more about the "AUR-like approach" of Arch ? It's always interresting to know how others do
