#195784 Create standard repository pool/ structure

Package:
mini-dinstall
Source:
mini-dinstall
Submitter:
Matthias Urlichs
Date:
2010-02-25 13:33:19 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
#195784#5
Date:
2003-06-02 09:32:39 UTC
From:
To:
mini-dinstall should be able to build a "real" apt-gettable directory
structure. That would require two changes from the simple subdirectory
scheme:

- - name the subdirectories binary_foo, not foo

- - install "Architecture: all" packages into all the binary_*
  subdirectories, not the one named "all"

- -- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux linux 2.4.21-rc3 #5 Sun May 25 23:29:44 CEST 2003 ppc
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8
iD8DBQE+2xm38+hUANcKr/kRApijAJ0czWr6JEOupY1wfAj+Q95JkqgRmACfU1ix
Dx9IKtooiK0bME/e4NLlfqc=
=MWKD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
#195784#16
Date:
2004-02-01 07:24:21 UTC
From:
To:
I started to do some work on this, but since it involves changing a number
of interfaces, and you didn't comment on this request, I thought I should
ask first if this is something that you actually want.

I'd like to move some of my existing repositories (managed by hand and with
ad hoc scripts) to use mini-dinstall, but I need for it to support the
standard archive layout.
#195784#21
Date:
2004-02-01 15:54:08 UTC
From:
To:
Yes. I planned on implementing this. But I have been re-organazing the
code quite a bit first, and that is why I haven't started on it.

Maybe I can release my development branch to experimental, and you can
work from there? The changes aren't really significant.

Glad to hear it.
#195784#26
Date:
2004-02-01 16:17:39 UTC
From:
To:
I meant to ask in my last mail, but what interfaces would need to be
changed?
#195784#31
Date:
2004-02-01 19:47:48 UTC
From:
To:
ArchiveDir seems to have worked out OK, but ArchiveDirIndexer needs to allow
the derived class to specify where the packages files go.
#195784#40
Date:
2004-04-30 16:42:26 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Matt,

Bug #195784 (mini-dinstall archive layout) has a patch kindly provided
by yourself.
As it has a (fairly obvious) typo that will chrash it immediately, I was
wondering whether you have a new patch or have abandoned this.

Kind regards

Thomas

P.S.: Thanks a lot for the libtool hint. I've prepared fixed openhbci
packages and am seeing to have them sponsored.
#195784#45
Date:
2004-04-30 17:04:28 UTC
From:
To:
The typo isn't obvious to me from looking at the patch, so perhaps you'll
humour me by pointing it out.  I believe I had everything working locally at
one point, so maybe that patch was not the final one.

I more or less abandoned it because the author said that he would be
reorganizing the code, which would break my patch (and possibly obsolete it
with his own implementation).
#195784#50
Date:
2004-04-30 18:52:45 UTC
From:
To:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I'm sorry if my use of "obvious" seems to be dismissive, this was by no
means intended.

What I meant by "fairly obvious typo" (well, it cannot escape testing,
because after applying the patch and starting the program it's an
instant crash) is here:
+        packagesfile = open(packagesfilename, 'w')
+        zpackagesfile = gzip.GzipFile(packagesfile + '.gz', 'w')
                                       ^ should be packagesfilename
Ah.

Kind regards

Thomas