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

Re: MSDOS name conversion

Erick Branderhorst writes ("Re: MSDOS name conversion"):
> ...
> > 3. Should we split the packages in the main binary directories too
> > (adding complication), or only in the msdos directories (wasting disk
> > space) ?
> I think that splitting the packages in the main binary is a bit of a
> problem for the dftp and dpkg-ftp scripts (I didn't check but I can 
> imagine).

But dftp and dpkg-ftp could be changed, right ?  After all, we have to
upgrade some software first to install 1.1 anyway ...

>   Therefore we better not split the packages. On the other hand
> offering splitted packages for msdos directories is a very good one.
> I would like it very much. Wasting diskspace seems to be needed at this
> moment. Perhaps we should allow this until the above mentioned scripts
> are updated to deal with splitted packages and then switch over to 
> splitted packages. 

I'm not proposing to change the stable tree.

How much are we worried about adding 50-75% to the size of the binary
distribution ?

> Perhaps a cgi-bin script can be created to make full package download
> for splitted packages possible. with ftp this seems unpossible, but a
> simple `cat' script should be able to do the job on httpd.

This has terrible hot-spot problems.


Reply to: