Talk:Software repository

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article is incredibly wishy-washy and really POV. Notwithstanding the text, the title is awful: is there some repository of Linuxes out there? Within the next few days I'll move it to Software repository and make it sort of NPOV, unless someone else seriously objects or gets there first. NicM 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I was uneasy with it myself, but I wanted to start by improving it, because it looked terrible. Anyway, an alternative course of action is to merge it into package manager. I'm not sure that "repositories" (in this sense) is a topic that is worthy of its own Wikipedia article.—greenrd 02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, merging is probably a better idea, there isn't really much to say about it that wouldn't be better in package manager. NicM 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Updating this pages content[edit]

Referencing previous posts, I am amazed by the lack of continuity on this page considering how relevant this content is today. I've started making updates regarding the lead and some minor changes in capitalization. I also want to work on reorganizing the content as there seems to be a mix of the words Package Manager and Repository Manager as there is a difference. TheStackOverflow (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStackOverflow: Please note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Headings, headers, and captions: Use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings. Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but leave the rest lower case except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text.

Use: Economic and demographic shifts after World War II

Avoid: Economic and Demographic Shifts After World War II

Wikiversity allows you to use the more common title case if you want, but not Wikipedia.

Would you mind complying with this arbitrary but long established standard? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMCEddy: I reversed that changed! Thanks for letting me know. TheStackOverflow (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStackOverflow: Thank you! DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for sections: history, OSes, repo vs. store[edit]

I'm amazed at how underdeveloped this topic is, considering that repos are now central to software distribution. If anybody has enough information to at least start the new sections, coverage of the idea's history (who came up with it, when, how it came about, how it has evolved), different OSes that make use of the idea, and perhaps the potential gap between a "repository" and a "store" might be good additions. (That's what I came here to look up, FWIW, as I don't have the answers.) —Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Software repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014212824/http://www.itmweb.com/essay503.htm to http://www.itmweb.com/essay503.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing the removal/rewriting of Two Sections[edit]

When reading this, I am a bit confused about the necessity of the two sections 'Package management system vs. package development process' and 'Selected repositories'. It feels miss placed and all over the place. I think we should either rewrite it or think about removing it to cause less confusion. TheStackOverflow (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStackOverflow: What's the confusion? Can you be more specific?

I'm an old Fortran hack, now writing primarily in R. My software development productivity increased dramatically when I started writing packages for the Comprehensive R Archive Network, because it encouraged the development of unit tests. I'm struggling today with stupid bugs in a web site and a major integrated development environment. An organization I'm working with agrees in principle that we need an issue tracking system, but they can't agree on whether to use Bugzilla or something else. Meanwhile, bugs are fixed one day only to reappear the next.

That's why I produced the first draft of what's in this article re. "Package management system vs. package development process" and "Selected repositories". I was hoping to recruit collaborators, who could help promote the use of automated testing to increase software development productivity.

I hope these comments might help clarify some of the issues I see and thereby better enable you to make more substantive improvements to this article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMCEddy: I think I was more confused about how specific it was, but that makes a lot more sense now. I think I am coming at this more broadly. TheStackOverflow (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStackOverflow: Wonderful. Might this now help you rewrite the sections you found confusing so they make more sense? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

difference wrt "filesystem"[edit]

I'd love to see a thoughtful presentation here of what a Software Repository (or a repository manager) is for. I mean, yes, it's for collating a collection of artifacts (which are sequences of bytes), and maybe also metadata, but it seems to me that's exactly what a filesystem is. What does a repository give me that a filesystem doesn't? Why would I want to select, obtain, install, configure, and learn how to use some dedicated repository manager, instead of the ordinary filesystem commands I'm already used to? —scs (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]