Re: MSDOS name conversion

[Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@lot49.med.miami.edu>]

In message <[🔎] m0tkLME-0002aEC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>, Ian Jackson writes:
>1. Is it OK just to change over to using these names, discarding the
>old ones, or will this (for example) cause problems for mirrors ?

If you stay with just symlinks into the binary directories, I don't
see how this could cause problems for mirrors.  mirror has shown
itself (in my estimation) to be pretty smart about that.

>3. Should we split the packages in the main binary directories too
>(adding complication), or only in the msdos directories (wasting disk
>space) ?

Have you tested your script to see what kind of results it gets on
split-package file names?  Might that not be the deciding factor?

I, as a mirror, don't have any significant objection to the additional
disk space that splitting the packages only the the msdos directories
would represent.

Having said that, this might be a reason to revisit the idea of
scripts to assist the ftp maintainer in verifying and placing incoming
packages---since the split step could be integrated into that process.

Mike.
--
"I never worry, why should I.  It's all gonna fade."