Re: Mirrors et al.
maor@ece.utexas.edu (Guy Maor) wrote on 28.04.96 in <[🔎] Pine.SOL.3.91.960428025901.4785A-100000@brando.ece.utexas.edu>:
> We've already discussed this on the list. See the archive for the
> grist. In a nutshell, CD manufacturers like versions.
As a refinement to the codename concept, I just hd the following idea:
/debian/versions/<code1>/...
<code1>/patches/...
<code2>/...
<code2>/patches/...
<code3>/...
/debian/0.93 -> versions/<code1>
1.1 -> versions/<code2>
current -> 1.1
unstable -> versions/<code3>
where either
.../<codex>/... is a released version,
.../<codex>/patches/... are important bug-fixed packages,
or else
.../<codex>/... is a released version, including bug fixes,
.../<codex>/patches/... is a list of symlinks into .../<codex>/... of
those important fixes
and in any case the unstable .../<codex>/... is a mix of new packages and
symlinks to old packages in the previous .../<codex>/...
(/patches/ should probably be a flat directory, not a tree. Of course,
there's no need for a /patches/ directory for the unstable tree.)
Besides from the very first migration to this concept, it seems this would
avoid most re-FTP-ing of large trees; and the first could certainly be
managed with early information and renaming scripts.
Plus, we keep both numbered releases and bug fixes, and we get a way to
identify the fixes that happened since the release, and an easy way to
tell people ("you need to upgrade the stuff in /debian/1.1/patches/").
Comments?
MfG Kai
Reply to: