On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org wrote:
= Flat Repository Format =
A flat repository does not use the {{{dists}}} hierarchy of directories,
and instead places meta index and indices directly into the archive root
(or some part below it) In sources.list
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
How about integrating it with the Policy's chapter 5 (thus enlarging its
scope) instead of having it as a separate document ? That would help to
underline when a field is used in the same way or differently as in the
package control data files.
The
Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
I have now documented the Contents indices and the diffs
as well, mostly (sans the exact format
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 07:38:59AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
friends and no sub-directories?
Should
Excerpts from David Kalnischkies's message of Thu May 17 18:21:59 +0200 2012:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek
michal.sucha...@ruk.cuni.cz wrote:
Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
Michal Suchanek writes (Re: Bug#671503: general: APT
Michal Suchanek michal.sucha...@ruk.cuni.cz writes:
Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
Michal Suchanek writes (Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
not documented):
Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
repository format is not documented):
Michal Suchanek michal.sucha...@ruk.cuni.cz writes:
[ discussions regarding documenting the apt repository format ]
I would suggest you
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
repository format is not documented):
Michal Suchanek michal.sucha...@ruk.cuni.cz writes:
[ discussions
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
repository format is not documented
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
I do not think that APT is responsible for the repository format. The
repository format is defined by ftpmaster, not by APT. APT has to my
knowledge not defined anything new, but only implemented changes to
the repository
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
* Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org [120518 14:43]:
A working draft could be something like the following. It mostly
describes the current format for Release, Packages, and Sources
files. It's thus missing Contents and Translations, pdiffs, and
stuff, but it's a beginning.
It specifies
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:34:29PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org [120518 14:43]:
A working draft could be something like the following. It mostly
describes the current format for Release, Packages, and Sources
files. It's thus missing Contents and
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
I have now documented the Contents indices and the diffs
as well, mostly (sans the exact format we use for the
patches), and Translation
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
friends and no sub-directories?
Should
+++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
I think reprepro is another?
/usr/share/doc/reprepro/manual.html contains a 'repository basics'
section which includes useful
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
I think reprepro is another?
Of course, I was just only talking
Excerpts from Julian Andres Klode's message of Fri May 18 18:49:10 +0200 2012:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
I have now documented the Contents indices and the
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 08:12:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
The formatting is not consistent but that will have to be changed for
docbook anyway.
Yes, and it will also be more readable then, than the current wiki
version.
Also would need some proof-reading. If nothing else somebody
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
friends and no sub-directories?
Should they be documented as well then? We would then have two
kind of
Le Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode a écrit :
In a few months, I'd like to rework this in DocBook form, and submit it to
debian-policy for inclusion into official Policy, as a sub-policy like
copyright-format.
Dear Julian and everybody,
thank you for this
Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
Could you clarify how this differs from #481129?
It's 4 years later.
Sorry, forgot that I filed the bug already. It's quite some time.
Given there is no feedback in 4 years I guess it is futile reporting
this.
Michal Suchanek writes (Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is not
documented):
Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
Could you clarify how this differs from #481129?
It's 4 years later.
Sorry, forgot that I filed the bug already. It's
Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
Michal Suchanek writes (Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
not documented):
Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
Could you clarify how this differs from #481129?
Hello,
On 2012-05-17 13:48, Michal Suchanek wrote:
Admittedly there is no text in social contract about using
Debian-proprietary formats. And a format only defined by apt can read
that is definitely Debian-proprietary there is no better term for that.
I'd say it's slightly discriminatory
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek
michal.sucha...@ruk.cuni.cz wrote:
Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
Michal Suchanek writes (Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
not documented):
Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of
26 matches
Mail list logo
