Re: Consens for `Filename: ' in Packages file?
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
>
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> 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.
But what about making a local directory
.../debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386 and telling the mirror script
to download .../binary-i386 into that directory? I don't see the problem.
Am I missing something?
> 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.
I think it would break more than it would fix.
Remco
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: