> Why should we put all packages versions on the update server?

Actually I would not - I would put the package on ibiblio and
only let the update server know about the ibiblio URL. And as
more (!) users will update manually than with the updater, it
is pretty helpful to have ibiblio filenames which do contain
the full version number and full package name, even though that
will give many files names longer than 8+3. You can use the
WGET -O option to set a fixed short output file name for what
the updater will store on harddisk :-).

> I thought rather of an "unique" update server...

Would make it more easy to look at the wrong place and get
the not-newest version, so I think the update server should
be more some "place for machine readable version info" and
not a "place for not human readably named zip files" ;-)).

> I would rather put all packages into one directory

I remember that this made the 1.0 "download any package
from 1.0" directory very user unfriendly. It contains way
too many files, with way too short names, so many users
got headaches when trying to download "diskcopy of 1.0"
or similar... Plus it did not tell them whether the 1.0
version or the version in, say, the diskcopy directory
of ibiblio was newer. I suggest the solution to have all
versions of diskcopy only in the diskcopy directory, and
name them "diskcopy-0815x.zip" or similar instead of
"dkcp815x.zip" or "dskcpyx.zip" or similar ;-).


SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to