Re: Package organization on CDs [was Re: Packages files references packages in pool instead of binary-... location]
Sorry, it seems newsnet news won't get routed to
"debian-devel@lists.debian.org".
> I suppose the package organization should be as convenient as possible, and
> since no programs (should) depend on it, this would mean convenient-for-
> humans. And I think everyone actually using this directory structure knows
> what package(=filename) he/she is looking for, but not always in which section
> to classify it.
>
I'm amazed you don't search for a package if you know its name or part
of it. Well there are 2 diametral different needs when accessing
packages: First the name is known, second is the function is known. If
the function is known, diverting (sorting) after function is much
better. An browsing through functional structur is much easier than through an
alphabetical structur.
> I do agree that it would be desirable for all packages to be present under
> binary-$ARCH (maybe with or without binary-all and/or symlinks between them).
> But to further follow the "example" of the main archive, there could also (i.e
>
Why not simply do both ways! If the pool has its own packages files, the
dists (I mean the binary-... structur) could keep their packages files
as well. So anybody could decide himself what kind of structur he wants to use.
To implement Packages files in the pool and still use the same tools,
there as to be a few changes:
- the files have to be renamed to like "Packages-$ARCH[-$DIST]"
- the location of the Packages files have to be move to the base of the
corresponding directory structur
- the base for the Filename-entry inside the Packages files has to be
changed to be relativ to the location of the Packages file.
Example of the pool structur:
pool/
Packages-i386-test
Packages-powerpc-stable
a/
aalib
...
Example of the dists structur
dists/.../main/
Packages-i386
Packages-powerpc
binary-all/
...
binary-i386/
...
binary-powerpc/
...
...
O. Wyss
Reply to: