Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

[Christian Grothoff]

On 2/10/19 9:25 PM, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 10.02.19 um 17:43 schrieb Christian Grothoff:
> 
> IMHO gnunet should be split into repos like this:
> 
> - framework ("core")

Should framework include the gnunet-gtk-common, causing GNUnet to drag
in Gtk+ (that's a bit along my question of merging gnunet-gtk.git with
gnunet.git, which few people seemed to like)?  Should framework include
gnunet-postgres and gnunet-mysql and gnunet-sqlite database routines?
Does the framework package then always drag in 3 databases as mandatory
dependencies?

> - applications
>     - file sharing
>     - conversation
>     - reclaim
>     - secushare
> 
> I would expect every developer working on one of the applications to
> understand he/she needs to install the framework first. (This is much
> like KDE is organized.)
> 
> Using a monorepo for all of this will lead to even more configure-flags,
> a complex CI setup, ugly merges and complicated bi-secting.
> 
> 
>> I wrote *good* package maintainers (those that
>> put in the effort)
> 
> From a packages perspective: You are wasting my time! I have other
> things to do but do split up you f*** package!
> 
> Seriously! When using a huge repo we are shifting the burden onto the
> packager. If we provide smaller, reasonably sliced repos, this makes
> packager's live much easier. TeXLive should be a warning for us, same as
> the gockel's android tools.

Then please explain how you want to slice the dependencies on the 3
(possibly more in future, MariaDB says hello) databases and the Gtk+
logic.  Note that each of these multiplies if one wants to be able to
ship "minimal" binaries:

5 proposed base packages * 3 databases  = 15 packages
5 proposed base packages * (gtk/no-gtk) = 10 packages
=====================================================
Repositories and TGZ to be created      = 25 packages

This is not feasible as far as I can tell (and note this is slightly
simplified, reclaim/conversation do not have a DB yet, but I'm leaving
out details like different audio backends for conversation, with
json/without json, gnunet-rest-core, etc. to keep the discussion focused
on my main point).

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature