On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Julian Andres Klode 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 syntax, a flat
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?
> >
>
* Paul Wise [120519 01:39]:
> I would like to see the flat-style repository documented too, since
> some of the derivatives in the Debian derivatives census use it and I
> would like to lint their apt repositories.
I my humble opinion the best documentation for the "flat-style" format
is: "don't
Julian Andres Klode 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 form
Charles Plessy 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 primary reason
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 docume
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 o
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 ind
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
+++ 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 la
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 talk
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?
Shou
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
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1337349939-sup-8...@virtual.ruk.cuni.
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
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: AP
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 writes:
> >
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 writes:
> > [ discussions regarding documenting the apt repository format ]
>
> I woul
Michal Suchanek 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:
>> > > Could you cl
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
> 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
> >>
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek
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 Wed May 16 18:44:21
21 matches
Mail list logo
