On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:41:47 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 13 21:01, Yaakov wrote: > > Before we do that, I think we need to consider a bit of > > reorganization. As in any binary distribution, there are many "noarch" > > packages which could be used for both i686 and x86_64. Providing two > > identical copies is just a waste of storage and bandwidth for > > sourceware, mirrors, and users. > > > > Instead, I think it would make sense to make three sibling trees, one > > for i686 (the current release/ directory), one for x86_64, and one for > > noarch packages. Then, there would be two scans by upset: setup.ini > > from i686 and noarch, and setup64.ini from x86_64 and noarch. > > Yes. You're right of course. This problem raises a few questions. > > - How do we store the packages on sourceware? > > Probably the easiest is to split into three dirs, as you suggested. > The naming is pretty irrelevant, but it might be best to use a > target name as the directory base, as on Linux: [snip] > Alternatively we could stick to the current "release" name for the > i686 distro and use only new, parallel dirs for noarch and new targets:
The former option may be easier to incorporate into cygport (e.g. release/$ARCH/$NAME instead of dist/$NAME, and maybe a user-configurable location for that release folder where all packages would land). The latter option would be less of a burden on sourceware, since only some of the packages would be moving instead of all of them. > Another problem is to move the existing noarch packages into the > right dir when we start. Well, at least this only has to be done > once, baring any mistakes. > > - For uploading packages it's important to know where the new package > has to go. Therefore, IMHO, it would make sense to change to a new > package naming scheme, preferedly compatible with the versioning > mechanism in upset, supported by cygport and easily recognizable by > uploaders or upload scripts. > > Linux distros typically use the architecture after the version number: > > package-foo-1.2.3-4.i686.tar.bz2 > package-bar-5-6-7.noarch.tar.bz2 > > However, for backward compatiblity with the current mechanism, would it > make sense to reorder it for Cygwin packages like so: > > package-foo-i686-1.2.3-4.tar.bz2 > package-bar-noarch-5.6-7.tar.bz2 Nack. IIUC this form would confuse upset/setup/cygcheck to no end. > - Do we have to change the RFU rules to include always the arch? > > If we change the naming convention of packages to include the arch, > probably not. Or if we make cygport organize things as above. Yaakov
