Re: Package Pool Proposal
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 10:55:41PM -0800, Guy Maor wrote:
> The hashing. First letter of package is clearly not a good choice.
> Of course I can use a real hash function, but I was hoping that I
> could come up with something simple enough to calculate in one's head.
> Otherwise downloading a single file becomes a bit more difficult.
> Perhaps this isn't that important, and users would have to query to
> database to find the real path?
How about first three characters of package name?
All packages are guaranteed to have at least two characters in the name
followed by a _ so this you don't have to know what version you're going
for to use this system.
Also, I like the implicit idea having a separate, distinct directory
for each package, underneath the "hash bucket" directories.
Finally, I'll note that we've not really discussed source packages, and
whether they should be stored under the same directory structure as the
binary packages, or a different one. So far, I'd say that implicitly
we're talking about putting them in the same hierarchy, but people's
comments about numbers seems to indicate otherwise.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: