Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is not documented
- To: Michal Suchanek <michal.suchanek@ruk.cuni.cz>
- Cc: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, "deity@lists.debian.org" <deity@lists.debian.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>, "481129@bugs.debian.org" <481129@bugs.debian.org>, Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>, "671503-submitter@bugs.debian.org" <671503-submitter@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-devel@lists.debian.org" <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, "663174@bugs.debian.org" <663174@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is not documented
- From: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:58:17 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120518185407.GA15468@debian.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Michal Suchanek <michal.suchanek@ruk.cuni.cz>, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, "deity@lists.debian.org" <deity@lists.debian.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>, "481129@bugs.debian.org" <481129@bugs.debian.org>, Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>, "671503-submitter@bugs.debian.org" <671503-submitter@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-devel@lists.debian.org" <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, "663174@bugs.debian.org" <663174@bugs.debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1337349939-sup-8754@virtual.ruk.cuni.cz>
- References: <20120504164934.22095.90884.reportbug@OptiPlex960.ruk.cuni.cz> <[🔎] 4FB3D965.5030106@gmail.com> <[🔎] 1337254452-sup-8697@virtual.ruk.cuni.cz> <[🔎] 20404.62666.335641.126171@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] 1337260034-sup-4991@virtual.ruk.cuni.cz> <[🔎] 87mx55lqbo.fsf@frosties.localnet> <[🔎] 20406.11351.808519.174392@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] 20120518133148.GA20358@debian.org> <[🔎] 20120518144017.GA21269@debian.org> <[🔎] 1337349939-sup-8754@virtual.ruk.cuni.cz>
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW
>
> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
friends and no sub-directories?
Should they be documented as well then? We would then have two
kind of documented repository formats:
1. Debian-style, with a pool (or similar) and a dists directory
2. Flat-style, with just one directory
This should cover everything we currently support. Although I don't
know much about how much stuff we support in flat directories WRT
Translation, Contents, and diffs.
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Reply to: