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

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

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:

> 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
> wrong.
> 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?

I am in favour of the "pool" system on the CD and forget the binary-arch. 
If there is going to be a change, bite the bullet and change.  It will
save confusion in the longer term.  I like the old scheme and will be
sorry to see it go, but I will get to like and understand the new scheme
in time.  There is also the question of uniformity; imho the structure of
the archive should be the same on mirrors, CDs, and HDDs - this will avoid
unnesesary confusion and make the maintainence of the installation tools

I have a question about the pool.  Where are the new Packages files (or
their equivelent) going to be placed?  This is something I have yet to
discover.  Thanks.


Philip Charles; 39a Paterson St., Dunedin, New Zealand; +64 3 4882818
Mobile 025 267 9420.  I sell GNU/Linux CDs.   See http://www.copyleft.co.nz

Reply to: