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

Re: apt 0.6 in experimental

On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 09:35:35PM -0500, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:

> On Sunday 28 December 2003 19:11, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > 1. Use dists/<dist>/Release for both purposes (authentication and
> > > pinning). This is trivial, and works fine for the Debian archive
> > > (dists/<dist>/Release is more or less a superset of
> > > dists/<dist>/<section>/<binary,source>/Release), but could have unknown
> > > effects for third-party repositories which provide per-section Release
> > > files.
> >
> > After discussing this with Colin Walters, I've implemented (1.) in apt
> > 0.6.4, which has been uploaded to experimental.
> So, as a 3rd-party repository maintainer who wants to provide signed Release 
> files, I should (eventually) get rid of my dists/<dist>/<section>/
> <binary,source>/Release files (since future versions of apt will ignore them) 
> and create dists/<dist>/Release files?  Do I understand this correctly?  
> Presumably the Component and Architecture fields of the Release file will 
> become obsolete?
> This is not a problem for me; I just want to be sure I understand things 
> correctly.  =)

You will presumably want to keep the per-section Release files around,
because current versions of apt do not read dists/<dist>/Release.
"Component" and "Architecture" do not seem to be used in
dists/<dist>/Release, only "Components" and "Architectures".  apt currently
does nothing with those fields; as far as apt is concerned, all fields are
optional except MD5Sum.

 - mdz

Reply to: