* Joel Aelwyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050120 19:10]:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:30:03AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > However, I think this feature still makes sense:
> >
> > For example, autobuilders need an unique distribution name to decide
> > where to upload packages to. So, e.g. for dak.ganneff.de, uploads may
> > also go to unstable-ganneff; they are however mapped to unstable. From
> > the users point of view, unstable-ganneff doesn't exist. The situation
> > for volatile is similar: Uploads to stable end up in stable-volatile -
> > but, there is for obvious reasons no symlink there.
> One additional question - do these distribution entries need Release
> files, and if so, what should be placed in them? Normally a Release
> file for sid will have the name 'unstable' in it, for example; since
> these are not supposed to be user-visible, and Release files always are,
> should the Release file not exist at all, or should it be filled out
> with the target distribution name?
No release files, nothing. At a very early stage of upload, they are
replaced by the "visible" names.
> Can a "virtual" dist (say, unstable-ganneff) target a symbolic name
> ("unstable"), or must it target a codename that appears as a primary entry
> on the filesystem ("sid")?
Frankly speaking, I don't mind. You can achive the same result in either
case, and - it's only a configuration difference.
> [...]
> Does this make sense?
Yes.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
