Re: Package Pool Proposal
Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Might it be better to use more granularity? This could lead to alot of files
> > in a dir, and we all know how debbugs handles that. Reiserfs handles that,
> > but it isn't part of a standard kernel, and we don't want to depend on
> > particular features of a filesystem, when we can design it right to begin
> > with.
>
> Guy's already hashing by the first letter of the package name. This will
> lead to directories that have an average of 130 package subdirectories in
> them on average with the packages we have today. (We will have one directory
> with 921 items in it for the letter 'l'.) Compare to today: package section
> directories in source have an average of 282 files in them.
>
> I don't see anything in Guy's design to prevent changeing it to hashing by
> the first 2 letters of the package name if we need to in the future, but
> debian would have to have a lot more packages in it before even a few
> directories approached 1000 entries.
>
> --
> see shy jo
>
This could lead to some problems because first-letters aren't randomize:
naming convention prevent this. Especially for lib* packages which, I'm
sure, can count for many. Reversing the naming maybe, or using the md5sum
(not very pratical but do the work). I don't know.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles Chevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers
aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Gris Debian GNU/Linux maintainer
E-mail: fab@tzone.org
WebPage: http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: