Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:12:41 +1000 (EST) From: jason andrade <jason@rtfmconsult.com> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Change in layout? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.50.0309111309090.12667-100000@luna.rtfmconsult.com> In-Reply-To: <20030911030455.GA3493@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20030911030455.GA3493@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Ken Smith wrote: > 1) Move the *release* package set into the releases/ directory > itself, instead of that being a symlink. > 2) Move the non-release package sets (e.g. packages-5-current) to > a new directory named releases/ i'm not quite following the second part. do you mean non release package sets should stay in a packages/ tree (new from ports/) > Using the 4.9 release as an example that means the package set that > would be placed in ports/i386/packages-4.9-release under the current > scheme would be placed in releases/i386/4.9-RELEASE/packages instead. yep. this would be good for better management of space in the future and provides a more logical distribution of the package sets. > - the releases/ directory continues to be "static" stuff, with some > clever rsync scripts or the separate cvsup collections available > you can continue to just sync that during active release times if > you want yep. once you have sync'ed a release tree you never need to sync it again as the contents should never change (sure, there are always exceptions but they have been very few of those in recent years) > - the packages/ directory (new) will contain only "dynamic" stuff, > and there will be less of it because the (static) release package > sets will now be in the releases/ directory this will allow some mirrors to exclude the entire dynamic/rebuilt 'packages' tree due to the volume of updates and do it very easily. > Is this worth pursuing? They may still say no - keep in mind releases > are built by different people than the ports/packages, etc. and > coordinating it amongst all the different people during a time they're > all under stress (release time...) might not work. sounds pretty good to me to do this. regards, -jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.50.0309111309090.12667-100000>