Robert Leslie writes ("Re: New ftp method for dselect"):
> > Exceptions: (the ones I saw, anyway)
> > stable/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA24-1.deb
> > debian-1.0/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA26-2.deb
>
> If there are no objections I think I will rename the nex
Brian White:
(the above is csh code... sorry!)
I've not been following this discussion very closely, but here's a
fairly literal translation of Brian's speedup to sh:
for FILE in `sed -e 's/\(.*\)-\([^-]*\)-\([^.-]*\)\.\([^-]*\)$/\1/\2/\3/\4/'`
do (
set `echo $FILE|tr / ' '`
i
Once we decide on a package naming standard, we should tell the
rest of the free software world what it is and encourage the
upstream maintainers to stick to that format.
Tell them without asking for comments? :-) [What was that about
committees?]
I lean towards Bill Mitchell's idea.
[
Bill Mitchell writes:
>The most reasonable approach seems to me (of course) to be the one
>which I've been arguing -- a naming standard very close to current
>practice, minimizing package renaming, and minimizing mangling of
>upstream naming and versioning.
Let me throw another idea in the pot.
From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd accept such a proclimation from you, barring opposition from Ian M.
I'm not going to make a proclamation this time. I'm going on vacation.
I didn't want to return to the same situation, though :-) . I was hoping
that I'd be able to upload my remaining
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I we can either rename existing packages, or use the double-dash. I don't
> care which. ...
The most reasonable approach seems to me (of course) to be the one
which I've been arguing -- a naming standard very close to current
practice, minimizing packa
Someone (David?) said:
> It seems to me that
> changing the very few packages which don't already conform to such
> a naming scheme would be much less disruptive than renaming every
> package.
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Also, a cheap workaround for any existing dependency problems wou
Since I don't really have anything invested in this debate, I'll
throw in my last two cents and shut up. It seems to me that
changing the very few packages which don't already conform to such
a naming scheme would be much less disruptive than renaming every
package.
Also, a cheap w
>Yup. Thanks for pointing that out. EXT should disallow dashes.
>
>The following seems to (slowly) parse all packages in a fairly old
>"available" file which I have handy as is apparently intended by the
>debian package maintainer, with the exception of
>
> elisp-manual-19-2.4-1.tar.gz (is
"brian (b.c.) white" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If the extension can contain dashes, once again it could cause parsing
> problems. Eliminating dashes (or dots, for that matter) here would
> again make it fit into a regular expression.
Yup. Thanks for pointing that out. EXT should disallow das
>A mostly-compatable compromise would seem to be:
>
>[...]
>
> Extension: May contain any printable chars.
If the extension can contain dashes, once again it could cause parsing
problems. Eliminating dashes (or dots, for that matter) here would
again make it fit into a regular expression.
Fernando Alegre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [...] the whole sunsite and tsx archives, which
> store packages with an almost standard format. Even though they are not
> Debian packages right now, some (many?) could be in the future. And the
> debianized name should be as close to the upstream
On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
[...]
> What programs are we talking about being compatible with? Not dselect or
> dpkg, which don't care about the filename. I'd hazard that dchanges would
> be easy to fix. Dftp would ask for the feature, as would the dselect
> FTP method.
>
> Am I mi
>> Personally, I also think we'll be better off if we bite the bullet and
>> try to maintain as much backwards compatability as we can with current
>> package naming usage than if we fall into a pattern of blowing off
>> backwards compatability issues in the interest of implementor convenience.
>
>
> ...
> > filenames have the form --.
> > e.g.: ab-cd-1.23a-45678.tar.gz
> > Field Separators:- - .
> > Field Contents: ab-cd 1.23a 45678 tar.gz
> ...
> > - Counting to the right from that point, the first '.' encountered
> > separ
...
> filenames have the form --.
> e.g.: ab-cd-1.23a-45678.tar.gz
> Field Separators:- - .
> Field Contents: ab-cd 1.23a 45678 tar.gz
...
> - Counting to the right from that point, the first '.' encountered
> separates REV from EX
Bill:
> a change in package
> naming conventions which is not backwards compatable with current
> naming conventions might have substantial impact on any 2nd-generation
> mirrors (and those 1st-generation mirrors which don't make special
> arrangements to mitigate the impact)
Yes. Well, we can war
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) said:
> From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Personally, I also think we'll be better off if we bite the bullet and
> > try to maintain as much backwards compatability as we can with current
> > package naming usage than if we fall into a pattern of blowing
From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Personally, I also think we'll be better off if we bite the bullet and
> try to maintain as much backwards compatability as we can with current
> package naming usage than if we fall into a pattern of blowing off
> backwards compatability issues in the inte
"brian (b.c.) white" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I looked into this more closely and it seems that most of the packages
> that once had dashes in the version stings are now gone. If neither
> the version nor revision strings can have dashes, then counting "-"'s
> will break up the filename withou
> Exceptions: (the ones I saw, anyway)
> stable/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA24-1.deb
> debian-1.0/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA26-2.deb
If there are no objections I think I will rename the next version of the bind
package to something like:
bind-4.9.3BETA26-3.*
Hopefully this will be
(Replying to my own message -- bad, I know...)
>3) Both version-strings and package-names may contain dashes so dashes
>cannot be used to flawlessly determine where versions & revisions are.
I looked into this more closely and it seems that most of the packages
that once had dashes in the versio
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: New ftp method for dselect"):
> > dchanges(1) seems to parse distribution filenames OK, though the
> > parsing code is pretty ugly. If it's broken, please let me know.
>
> "
David Engel writes ("Re: New ftp method for dselect"):
> OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
> reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
> anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file nam
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: New ftp method for dselect"):
> dchanges(1) seems to parse distribution filenames OK, though the
> parsing code is pretty ugly. If it's broken, please let me know.
"Seems to do it OK" isn't good enough - we need something unambiguous
and predictable.
Ian.
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes (supercite undone - iwj):
>[Ian Jackson writes:]
> > Right. In order to avoid having to rename lots of packages or change
> > their version numbers I propose the following naming scheme for files
> > on the FTP site in the `binary' directory:
> > --[-].deb
> > Note the
>OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
>reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
>anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
>doesn't match the package name (ldso)? What am I missing?
You're not missing anything. M
David Engel wrote:
> OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
> reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
> anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
> doesn't match the package name (ldso)? What am I missing?
Working
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel)
> OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
> reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
> anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
> doesn't match the package name (ldso)? What am I
> > I missed the first part of this thread. Sorry. What is the resoning
> > for this drastic change?
>
> Distribution file names don't parse at the moment because you can't
> disambiguate the package name from the version number. I had suggested
> that we standardize package names so that FTP
On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Distribution file names don't parse at the moment because you can't
> disambiguate the package name from the version number. I had suggested
> that we standardize package names so that FTP scripts would work better
> and would not have to carry around a
Ian Jackson:
> Right. In order to avoid having to rename lots of packages or change
> their version numbers I propose the following naming scheme for files
> on the FTP site in the `binary' directory:
>
> --[-].deb
>
> Note the two hyphens.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel)
> I missed the
> > I could make the bootstrap floppies support an FTP installation if you
> > would do the work necessary to integrate this method into dselect.
> > To do this you need a package naming standard - perhaps a deviation from
> > your plan, but easy enough to do and it would be of great benefit to us
Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Right. In order to avoid having to rename lots of packages or change
Ian> their version numbers I propose the following naming scheme for files
Ian> on the FTP site in the `binary' directory:
Ian>
Ian> --[-].deb
Ian>
Ian> Note the two hyphens.
Could
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: New ftp method for dselect"):
> I used Andy Guy's FTP method for dselect to upgrade a bunch of ELF
> packages automaticaly this evening. It worked very well, and even
> detected corrupt and partially-downloaded packages when I used a kernel
&g
Ian Jackson,
I used Andy Guy's FTP method for dselect to upgrade a bunch of ELF
packages automaticaly this evening. It worked very well, and even
detected corrupt and partially-downloaded packages when I used a kernel
with networking problems.
I could make the bootstrap floppies support an FTP in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I have written a new method for dselect that uses ftp.
To install, untar the attached file and copy into
/usr/lib/dpkg/methods/ftp
Compile the dvercmp.c file, and put the executable some where in the
default path (/usr/local/bin)
Create a directory /var/lib/d
37 matches
Mail list logo
