[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Package organization on CDs [was Re: Packages files references packages in pool instead of binary-... location]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Petr Cech wrote:

> > While a pool structur is usful for directly downloding files or building
> > distributions, it is not for the distribution itself. Especially if
> > distributed on CD's the current binary-... structur is much better. And
> > Packages files are an integral part of distributions.
> you're wellcome to fix debian-cd to do this. I agree that it would be nice to
> have it on the CD as it was

Thus far the .deb package organization on the CDs has reflected the situation
in the main archive -- which was the logical choice. However now that we're
going to have package pools, we might want to reconsider this. Currently
section-based ordering is used, so there's for example binary-i386/admin/
through binary-i386/x11/. But, following the pool model, there could also be
binary-i386/a/ through binary-i386/z/, and in those directories either all
packages starting with that letter (with "special" lib* handling) or
subdirectories based on source package name (most of which would only contain
one single file).

Personally, I'd like the "first variant" of the name-based hashing, simply
because more than once my first guess of the section name turns out to be

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 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
as second "access point") be a pool/ directory with sym- or hardlinks to files
under binary-*/, or the other way around. Required diskspace for hardlinks
would probably be <1 MB, but for symlinks could get up to about 10 MB (per CD
that is).

Opinions? Other options? Strong supporters of any particular structure?

  Anne Bezemer

Reply to: