Re: MSDOS name conversion
In article <[🔎] m0tkLME-0002aEC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>,
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>2. Does anyone have any good knapsack-solving code, or something
The problem isn't really one of the standard knapsack problems.
Firstly, we need to decide how the problem should be subdivided before
packing algorithm is applied. Possibilities:
1. (Minimal) A single series of disks containing the non-base
2. (Slackware-esque) A series of disks for each section, containing
the packages in that section in no paritcular order.
3. A series of disks for each section, but subdivided in the order
required > important > standard > optional > extra.
4. A series of disks for each section, sorted *approximately* in above
order, though packed more optimally than (3).
It would appear that solution 4 would minimise disk
shuffling. (Indeed, I wish Microsoft would implement this on their
Is the packing algorithm allowed to decide what size chunks to split
Do we do this just for binary packages, or source as well? Should
binary and source be kept partitioned (one set of disks for binary,
one for source)? Most endusers will probably want the binaries.
Ultimately, this discussion ought to lead to a package that given a
quantisation size comptues and creates a series of disks containing
the archive in appropiate size chunks. Prehaps this package could be
made quite portable (eg both Linux and DOS versions). Then, if sites
or CD-ROMs decide not to carry the quantised floppy hierarchy, (clever)
end users do still have the chance of trivially constructing a pile of
Such a utility of course has wider applications than just this