Re: Package Pool Proposal

[Miles Bader <miles@ccs.mt.nec.co.jp>]

The consensus seems to be that it's better to special-case `lib' and
perhaps other prefixes.

Another issue (and perhaps I am simply mis-understanding the messages
I've read) is how the directories are named.  I see people doing it two
ways in their examples:

  1) Simply stripping the `lib' (and perhap other) prefix from the
     package name, and then adding the package to the directory
     indicated by the remainder of the name, together with any packages
     that have the same first letter but are not prefixed.

  2) Having a special directory for each `libX' -- e.g., package
     `libfoo' goes into the `libf' directory, but package `fozzle' goes
     into the `f' directory.

Option (1) would seem to require special-case rules in the retrieval
software (as well as the head of anyone fetching stuff manually).  This
makes adding new special-case prefixes difficult.

Option (2) seems better-behaved: one need only fetch the top-level
directory listing, and look for the longest directory name that's a
prefix of the package in question.  I'm not sure if the extra expense of
always fetching the top-level directory is objectionable or not (it
shouldn't be very large).

It's not clear to me if the resulting ftp-site pathnames will be
referred to in any client-visible files.  Assuming that they won't be,
then option (2) also allows adding new special-case prefixes without
updating any client software, and by the same token, deleting old ones
(when their are too-few packages in them).  Indeed, it seems easy to
write a program that automatically figures an `optimal' set of prefixes
for the current package set; this could be redone every couple of
years...

Comments?

-Miles
-- 
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath.  At night the ice weasels come.  --Nietzsche