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

Re: MSDOS name conversion

Kai Henningsen writes ("Re: MSDOS name conversion"):
> ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)  wrote on 08.02.96 in <[🔎] m0tkLME-0002aEC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>:
> > 3. Should we split the packages in the main binary directories too
> > (adding complication), or only in the msdos directories (wasting disk
> > space) ?
> I would prefer either having only split files, or else having the "real"  
> split files in an easily-identifiable area (say, .../binary/split/... or  
> .../binary/{base,devel,...}/split/ or whatever), so it's possible to  
> adjust mirror as to mirror only one copy of each package. Of course, a  
> naming convention for split parts would also do it - for people using the  
> Perl "mirror" package.

The split packages would be in the msdos area (where everything would
be sorted into floppy disks and have msdos-friendly names).

The question is whether there is any reason why we shouldn't split the
packages in the main area too, and I haven't heard a really good
reason why not ...


Reply to: