On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:43:42 +0100 Bryan Østergaard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:16:44 +0100 > > Bryan Østergaard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My vote would be for moving on with this idea and seeing how it'll > >> work out in practice. Any (good) reasons we shouldn't go on with > >> this? > > > > Well... We still need to work out the on-disk layout. > > > I'm aware of that but the basic idea should be fine imo. Lets see how > some suggestions would look like for our current repositories.
Ok, here's what we're probably looking at:
metadata/layout.conf will get a new packages-mapping key. If this is
'direct', a repository will look like this:
packages/
-none-/
foo/ for /foo
bar/ for /bar
baz/ for /baz
ruby/
foo/ for ruby/foo
monkey++/ for ruby/monkey++
STUPID/ for ruby/STUPID
If it is 'last':
packages/
-none-/
o/
foo/ for /foo
r/
bar/ for /bar
z/
baz/ for /baz
ruby/
d/
STUPID/ for ruby/STUPID
f/
foo/ for ruby/foo
y/
monkey++/ for ruby/monkey++
This way small repos don't need to bother with the extra directory, but
those with 20 or more packages do. And if at any point we get
repositories with more than ~1200 packages we can start using two
letter mappings for them.
Next up is working out the migration path for rewriting every single
DEPENDENCIES all in one go...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
