[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages file (long email) [WAS: Splitting Packages]

Glenn McGrath wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:53:38 +0200
"Fabio Massimo Di Nitto" <fabbione@fabbione.net> wrote:

Why there is a source field in an optional pkg and not in bash for instance??

If Source: isnt specified its assumed to be of the same name as the binary

Yeah ok but my point is (just be more clear even with others): it's an exception that generate overhead. We also have the deb-src entries that can handle this situations. I didn't look at all to the Source but I think that this kind of entry is more appropriate there than in Packages.

Now that's just the general idea that pushed me to think to a sort of
"new" structure. Ex:

I think the question that has to be considered before doing this is,
Should the Packages file be human readable i.e. text or binary ?

If a binary file was used a text file could be generated from it for

I would say text. Implementing a binary solution requires more utilities
to gather info from the archive. Like it is now a simple grep/less or whatever is more than enough. I can find also other reasons why I would
not use binary files but that was just due to some problems on one of my
system. Having them as a text files saved me twice from reinstalling
from scratch ;)


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: