Re: Distribution
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Distribution"):
> I'd suggest DEVELOPMENT, or WORKING, or IN_PROGRESS, or somesuch
> rather than CURRENT if these are to be visible to user-downloaders.
>
> CURRENT is likely not to be taken as bleeding-edge-and-unfinished
> by user-downloaders.
Right. I think `development' vs. `released' is about the right
distinction.
I think capital letters are a bad thing, but others may disagree.
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Distribution"):
> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:21:48 -0700
> From: Bruce Perens <bruce@Pixar.com>
>
> Rather than re-arrange the current released system, let's put the
> new organization in place for the "current" and "1.0" system, and
> leave debian-0.93 where it is now so we don't mess up the mirrors
> again. That'll give us freedom to move things around for a while.
>
> Agreed.
Bruce is right.
So, what we're left with, if you agree with my release strategy, is:
released -> debian-0.93
development -> debian-1.0
debian-0.93/binary [ bugfixes and urgent releases only ]
source
ms-dos
Packages -> binary/Packages
disks
debian-1.0/binary [ most new uploads get put here ]
source
ms-dos
Packages -> binary/Packages
disks
contrib/binary
source
ms-dos
Packages -> binary/Packages
non-free/binary
source
ms-dos
Packages -> binary/Packages
Packages-Master [ Union of released, contrib, non-free ]
tools/
doc/ [ Shouldn't we merge doc/, info/ and some
info/ of project/ ? ]
kernel/
private/
experimental/ [ Other stuff only for special purposes ]
README.*
If we decide we need updates directories for people to go scouring if
they had a version from date X then each of released, development,
contrib and non-free needs an `updates' directory with names after the
last 6 quarters (say). New packages get moved into the most recent
one of those (and any duplicates from the older updates directories
removed) as well as into the `binary' directory.
Does this seem good to people ?
Ian.
Reply to: