Re: Package Pool Proposal
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 11:50:26AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 09:22:52PM +1100 , Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 03:26:33PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > If 857 is too big a number (I don't know that it is), make an
> > > > > exeption for lib packages and take the first letter _after_ `lib':
> > > >
> > > > Sneaky, I like that and it does seem to help alot!
> > >
> > > Confusing for manual downloads, though.
> >
> > IMHO not too much. If you see dirs a/, b/ ... lib/, m/ ...
> > you will know, where to look
>
> I think that is not quite right -- instead, there will be just
> a through z, but for example libgtk* would be in the g/ directory,
> libpng in the p/ directory.
>From the point of view of distributing packages more evenly into
directories, either proposal should work fine, no?
But suppose you're a hapless human with no knowledge of how the ftp site
is set up. If you're looking for "libfoo" and see dirs
a/ b/ ... /l /lib /m ...
you'll know what to do immediately. If you see
a/ b/ ... /l /m ...
chances are high that you'd look into directory "l" first.
If the two schemes are equally easy for the automated software, why not
favour the one that makes it easier on humans?
-S
Reply to: