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

Re: New ftp method for dselect

>OK, so package file names don't parse easily.  Why couldn't the cross
>reference be included in the Packages file?  It's needed by dselect
>anyway.  Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
>doesn't match the package name (ldso)?  What am I missing?

You're not missing anything.  Months ago, I tried to get the filename
standardized so my "dftp" program could properly get version info from
the filename.  This eventually led nowhere.

1) Nobody wants to change the names of existing packages.  The "ldso"
maintainer flat-out refused to match the filename to the package name.
Having a daemon automatically rename packages was also discarded.

2) Some version-strings start with a letter so you can't use "-[0-0]"
to locate the start of the version, though I think this still matches
more names than most other methods.

3) Both version-strings and package-names may contain dashes so dashes
cannot be used to flawlessly determine where versions & revisions are.

4) Some packages (notably "dpkg") doesn't even have a revision number.
If the primary people involved won't standardize the name on their own
packages, don't count on it getting done.

As a concession, the filename of each packages has been put into the
"Packages" file at the top of each directory hierachy.  The
"Packages-Master" contains (I believe) all of the "stable" and
"contrib" packages.

The "expermental" hierarchy has no "Packages" file because Ian wishes
people not to be able to accidentally download from there.

                                 ( bcwhite@bnr.ca )

    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.

Reply to: