On Tue, 2006 Apr 04 22:33:46 +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Moving to directories carrying the download origin in the path, or > encoding the same information into the filename - that really does not > make a big difference. In contrary, And I can also imagine a worst case > where the encoded name can become really large, making filesystem > operation slower or even creating invalid filename (though I could not > find or imagine names longer than 150 chars, though).
Both points well taken. My assumption was that package files would eventually be handled in the same way as the Release/Sources/Packages files (path info encoded into the filenames), but perhaps that's not a given.... > The problem is, the migration cannot be completely painless. Because > without tracking the origin of the packages apt-cacher will keep > delievering the wrong files, so it must to "learn" which mirrors or > download locations the existing files can be assigned to. But wouldn't existing (and presumably non-broken) repositories contain only packages with a single, common origin? That is, all Debian or all Ubuntu? It's only when a repository attempts to serve up both that multiple origins come into play, and by then one could argue that the package-name intersections render the repository broken. What I was thinking was that existing users with large, single-origin repositories would get a lazy/painless upgrade to the new package-storing convention. Users who want to serve up multi-origin repositories would have to start from scratch, using the forthcoming (yes? :) version of apt-cacher that supports it. Did you also have in mind the group of users who are currently running multi-origin repositories, and are ignoring/overlooking/unaware of the ill effects? --Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
