On 31 Jul 2007 12:51:39 -0400 Ian Zimmerman <itz@madbat.mine.nu> wrote: > > Neil> reprepro doesn't force these on you but it does not stop you > Neil> adding them later either. > > Ian> OK, I'll take a look at reprepro. > > I did. reprepro still wants me to have a pool and dists subdirectories, I don't see the harm. It is the expected structure of a repository and makes it easy for other tools to work with it. If you want a repository that is easy to maintain, use a tool that creates a layout that most tools will understand. It sounds like you want a simple-complex repository - 'simple' bits able to support the complex requirements of SecureApt. What is so wrong with a slightly increased directory tree if it gives you the ease of maintenance AND SecureApt? Seems to me you have two choices: Use what you had without SecureApt. Use the directory layout and tools that support SecureApt. IMHO the first is short-sighted and unmaintainable because further changes in repository handling will only increase your difficulty in maintaining a bespoke layout. > at the very least. This just makes it more complicated to maintain, > in particular to upload the debs. dput ? > I don't think reprepro is the right tool for my job, either. Again, > this is _not_ a mirror. Neither are my reprepro repositories. One handles less than a dozen packages. If you want apt authentication to work with your layout, you have to ensure that it abides by how apt expects to use the layout - the easiest way to do that is with a tool that is known to work with apt authentication, like reprepro. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpFy38j4a2Y3.pgp
Description: PGP signature