Re: [Savannah-hackers] Re: commonc++ integrated to http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/commonc++/

[David Sugar]

Loic Dachary wrote:

>  You can create modules under subversions.gnu.org:/cvsroot/commoncpp (it
> currently only have one module named commoncpp). If these modules can be
> considered as experimental or closely related to Common C++ and all under
> GPL this won't be a problem at all. You can use the repository as a work
> area for Common C++ related work, it's the intended purpose of Savannah &
> subversions.

That is perfect, matches this case exactly, and is exactly what I want to do 
cvs-wise.


>  Now if you want to distribute separate packages for those modules it's a
> different matter and you need to discuss it with address@hidden in order
> to make sure they fit in the GNU system.

Since we do not have distribution/updating of the ftp work directory 
integrated into savannah currently, this is not an issue as yet.  And I do 
think you are correct, that either such additional packages ultimately need to 
be individually designated as part of GNU; merge into/become part of the 
Common C++ package itself; or are simply re-distributed elsewhere.

This also suggests that when you do have package distribution working, it 
perhaps would have a somewhat different and much simpler mechanics than what 
we find on SourceForge today.  Since GNU packages are generally only 
distributed on ftp.gnu.org as a tarball rather than with various source and 
binary "packaging" formats, and in that normally there is only one tarball to 
deal with per package for any given release, much of the complexity in "later" 
versions of the SourceForge "package distribution" forms can probably go away 
entirely.

Based on my own experiance with SourceForge, what I would love to see for 
software distribution is a simple index page that showed what tarballs are 
currently in the ftp directory for a given package with some additional 
options and buttons on the page for the package maintainers to use.  I would 
also love a mechanically simpler one page form and single step submit to 
generate and distribute a new package tarball release.  Finally, it would be 
useful to allow a package maintainer to selectivily designate prior releases 
for "archiving", to be able to revoke an active release if nessisary, etc.

David