Re: [Vectorlinux-devel] Repo suggestions for discussion

[Jose J. R. <jo...@gm...>]

On 10/5/06, John B <joh...@gm...> wrote:
> Here are my $2.00 on the matter.
>
> On 10/5/06, Jose J. Rodriguez <jo...@gm...> wrote:
> > During the repo overhaul I was doing today I came up with some
> > suggestions and questions about possible changes to the repo
> > structure. I'd like to discuss them here:
> >
> > - rename testing/ to unstable/ (this should be for development (cvs,
> > alpha, beta) versions of apps, libs, etc.)
> > - create a new, possibly unstructured testing/ category, but only for
> > temp storage of packages to be checked for correctness.
>
> Maybe just keep testing as is and add an unstable directory for cvs stuff, etc.
>

Could be too, but sounds more logical the other way around, IMHO.

>
> > - unclassified/ should be holding place till decided whether to put in
> > unstable or extras.
> > - extras/unclassified/: temp holding place (try not to abuse this).
> > - unstable/unclassified/: temp holding place (try not to abuse this).
> > - packages/unclassified/: temp holding place (try not to abuse this).
>
> The only issue here is that the makeinfo-slapt and makeinfo-slack
> scripts traverse the directory tree from the packages level. If we're
> going to have an "unclassified" directory, I think it would be best to
> keep it at the same level as the "packages" directory. That way, those
> unclassified items aren't made available via slapt-get or gslapt until
> decisions are made.
>

Agreed, I was leaning in this direction myself.

>
> > - rename packages to stable ???
>
> This might not matter too much.
>

Maybe release or a similar name is better, see comment below regarding
dist-upgrade for more on this.

>
> > - rename base/ to libs/ (because stable/ already means the package is
> > in the iso and will be used in distro-upgrade, also base and base-apps
> > would be misleading in extra/ and unstable/) ???
> > - rename base-apps/ to apps/ (same reason as above) ???
>
> The major problem with making those two changes is that I have patched
> slapt-get for VL Dynamite so that the dist-upgrade mechanism will
> work. I've used base$ as the regex for slapt-get's searches. (For the
> slack repos, a$ is the search regex, which would search both the a and
> ap directories.)
>
<snip>
>
> As Jason explained to me, slapt-get needs to parse the a and ap
> directories for Slackware (analogous to our base and base-apps
> directories) so that the packages that are the real base of the distro
> are upgraded correctly. Of course this also means we would need to
> have all of the packages that are used on the ISO in the repository.
>

As I understood it in earlier discussions, the packages repo (or
stable, or whatever) was only for those apps included in the distro
and that would be subject to a distro-upgrade. Everything else would
be in extras. So maybe a name like "release" (or any other that helps
to bring that idea across) would be more understandable. Anyway, if a
and ap (base and base-apps) are not analogous to the cli libs and apps
released with the iso, then I understand your point. We also need to
decide if this repo category will include just the packages that make
up the "bulks", or also the optionally selectable packages that are
listed later on during install.

Regards,
Joe1962