Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes:
> Bredewlow,
>
> You have raised a number of important issues. However I think we need to
> wait until Gordon finishes his proposal he is working on until we start
> debating again, to ensure that we are all looking at the same set of
> issues. Otherwise it gets too confusing for everybody involved.
>
> >Why do we have an architecture field at all?
>
> I think you will find Gordon has removed this field when he finishes
> his proposal.
I will wait and see. Anyway, I have pretty much on my mind with my
upcomming proposal about configuring debian packages.
(ftp://mirjam.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/pub/dpkg-config/ will start
to fill with some deb files implementing my proposal)
> >You don`t need to download anything. They would be link farms anyway.
> >You would chose the directory descibing the selection of release,
> >arch, os,... that suits your needs best and download that, while
> >resolving the links therein. Also you could download the links and
> >automatically download all packages that links point to that you don`t
> >have already.
>
> FTP reorganisation may not be part of Gordon's initial proposal, but
> one thing at a time, please! (I agree - I may have been at fault for
> bringing up too many things at once before, however we probably should
> stop it before it gets out of hand).
Its not a reorganisation, just an additional tree that will hold only
links. But important things first.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Reply to: