Hi Jim, > On Mar 28, 2022, at 1:40 PM, Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 10:41 AM Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel > <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>> wrote: >> >>> The branches that receive updates (1.2, 1.3, latest) contain the latest >>> version of the packages that we have created. I don’t see a reason >>> to add a new branch. If we decided to change package file extensions >>> (and possibly format), 1.2 and 1.3 would be detached from Latest. And >>> most likely would receive few if any updates. >>> >>> Jim already provides the ‘raw’ files under a couple directories at >>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/ . They are >>> raw mirrors and most are not in package format. Oh, I was confused >>> thinking latest was not in package format. It is because it is in >>> repositories. I see that there is less categories in freedos/files >>> than in the repositories however. >> >> I am very surprised that 1.2 and 1.3 repositories are (still unsure) >> symlinks to latest repository. Because in my mind, you have no right >> to modify 1.2 or 1.3 after they have been released. But it seems the >> project don't share this mindset. >> > > > To clarify, we shouldn't be mixing "1.2" and "1.3" afterwards. Making > updated packages available for "1.2" or "1.3" is one thing, but > pushing package updates from FreeDOS 1.3 to a FreeDOS 1.2 user seems > like the wrong approach in maintaining a distribution. If someone has > installed FreeDOS 1.2 and then updates to the latest packages in > "1.2", then they shouldn't get packages from FreeDOS 1.3 which could > have some differences in paths and other assumptions. (I know that > mixing packages shouldn't be a problem, but I think it's cleaner to > keep "1.2" as "1.2", and "1.3" as "1.3".) > > But it looks like we do that in Ibiblio. I didn't realize that was the > setup.
It’s been that way since 1.3 development began years ago. I’m fairly sure I mentioned it before. But, maybe not or maybe not clearly enough. That was a long time ago. > Here's what I see on Ibiblio: > > $ ls repositories/ -l > total 8 > drwxr-xr-x 12 freedos users 4096 May 8 2016 1.1 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 freedos users 6 Nov 20 2018 1.2 -> latest > lrwxrwxrwx 1 freedos users 6 Nov 20 2018 1.3 -> latest > drwxr-xr-x 18 freedos users 4096 Mar 28 03:05 latest > > > I wonder if there's a way to revert this on Ibiblio so we don't "mix" > the updates from FreeDOS 1.2 and 1.3? > > Or is it too late to do that? 1.2 and 1.3 are more or less compatible. There could be some path based differences. However, most of that is handled by the package manager. But like you stated, there could be other assumptions made in 1.3 that could cause issues under 1.2. We can split them up and should do that. It’s not a problem for the repo management utility. It was designed with such things in mind. FreeDOS 2.0 will probably be different enough, that it will definitely need it’s own repository from the start. So if you want, I’ll go ahead and fork 1.2 and 1.3 repos. While I’m at it, I will add one for FreeDOS 2.0. Jerome
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
