Re: Consens for `Filename: ' in Packages file?
On 26 Jan 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I would much prefer to have the Filename field be relative to the location
> > of the Package file, it would make mirroring small sections simpler. But
> > doing that will break dselect.
> It's also a bad idea because the Packages file would then not be
> complete. You'd have to know where it came from. And if you know
> where it came from, you easily trim that directory off the Filename if
> you wish.
Presumably that is the idea. The program that accesses the package file
knows where it got it from. This would make it smaller and easier to
relocate. I could then simply point mirror at hamm/hamm/binary-i386 and
get something that works [right now I would have to make a symlink mess
or a script to parse off the junk]. The absolute path to the package .deb
from the base of the archive is really redundant information.
I don't think it is such a big deal whether the packages file has
'dists/stable/main/binary-i386/blah/' redundantly prefixed to every
filename. It might make some things easier to not do that, and would
probably trim a few K off the file in the process. But since we are
already doing it this way there isn't much point in changing.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .