Solution depends on how long you want the alternative to last. Option 1: Move all LSCs to a subdir. Currently, somewhat > 8000 scripts could be segregated that way. Question: is that enough? How long will that solution last?
Option 2: Create a unique directory for each category of script. More granular than option #1, probably will never suffer from excess scripts in any one directory. BUT, if a script changes it's category for whatever reason, do you change it's location in SVN? Option 3: Segregated by year of creation. Never will have to worry about excess scripts in any year. Easy to manage. Not tied to category or any other metric. I like option #3 the best... Thomas Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote: > Hello, > > the size and pace of NVT updates caused some trouble to the SVN > and several people might have observed problems with updating. > At least the OpenVAS NVT Service got troubled (but is fixed now). > > It is really time to start having subdirectories for the scripts directory. > Just separating one of the big groups such as debian would help a lot. > The current problem is svn, not the actual feed service or scanner. > Too many files in one dir with many changes causes trouble to SVN. > > I am not seeking for a whole new tree/OID structure for the NVTs > as I don't think we have all criteria discussed for this. A small > yet effective solution would be sufficient. > > Proposals welcome! > > Best > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Openvas-plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
