Re: Package organization on CDs [was Re: Packages files references packages in pool instead of binary-... location]
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Could somebody enlighten me what was wrong with the old "model" of
> handling packages in directories?
>
> Why was the pool model necessary?
The old model had everything needed for a release under
$CODENAME/binary-$ARCH/ (well, "something" like that ;-), with the necessary
symlinks to binary-all/. And ${CODENAME+1}/binary-$ARCH has large amounts of
symlinks to $CODENAME/binary-$ARCH. Implementing ${CODENAME-plus-extras},
${CODENAME-and-a-half}, ${CODENAME+1-testing} and so on would require immense
amounts of symlinks and be terrible to maintain.
The pool model essentially gets rid of all symlinks, and moves that
information to the Packages files. This way it becomes far more easy to create
and maintain a multitude of testing and experimental releases, for example
different package subsets freezing at different times (either sequentially or
concurrently), which "should" be beneficial to the release process.
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
Reply to: