On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> = Flat Repository Format =
>
> A flat repository does not use the {{{dists}}} hierarchy of directories,
> and instead places meta index and indices directly into the archive root
> (or some part below it) In sources.list syntax, a flat
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 07:38:59AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>
> > What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
> > just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
> > friends and no sub-directories?
> >
>
Julian Andres Klode writes:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> FWIW
>>
>> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Michal
>
> I have now documented the Contents indices and the diffs
> as well, mostly (sans the exact form
Charles Plessy writes:
> How about integrating it with the Policy's chapter 5 (thus enlarging its
> scope) instead of having it as a separate document ? That would help to
> underline when a field is used in the same way or differently as in the
> package control data files.
The primary reason
Le Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode a écrit :
>
> In a few months, I'd like to rework this in DocBook form, and submit it to
> debian-policy for inclusion into official Policy, as a sub-policy like
> copyright-format.
Dear Julian and everybody,
thank you for this docume
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
> just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
> friends and no sub-directories?
>
> Should they be documented as well then? We would then have two
> kind o
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 08:12:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> The formatting is not consistent but that will have to be changed for
> docbook anyway.
Yes, and it will also be more readable then, than the current wiki
version.
>
> Also would need some proof-reading. If nothing else somebody
Excerpts from Julian Andres Klode's message of Fri May 18 18:49:10 +0200 2012:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > FWIW
> >
> > posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Michal
>
> I have now documented the Contents ind
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
>
> > We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
> > format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
>
> I think reprepro is another?
Of course, I was just only talk
+++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
> We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
> format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
I think reprepro is another?
/usr/share/doc/reprepro/manual.html contains a 'repository basics'
section which includes useful la
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW
>
> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
friends and no sub-directories?
Shou
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW
>
> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal
I have now documented the Contents indices and the diffs
as well, mostly (sans the exact format we use for the
patches), and Translation
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:34:29PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Julian Andres Klode [120518 14:43]:
> > A working draft could be something like the following. It mostly
> > describes the current format for Release, Packages, and Sources
> > files. It's thus missing Contents and Translations,
* Julian Andres Klode [120518 14:43]:
> A working draft could be something like the following. It mostly
> describes the current format for Release, Packages, and Sources
> files. It's thus missing Contents and Translations, pdiffs, and
> stuff, but it's a beginning.
>
> It specifies different req
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I do not think that APT is responsible for the repository format. The
> repository format is defined by ftpmaster, not by APT. APT has to my
> knowledge not defined anything new, but only implemented changes to
> the repository
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
> >
> > Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: AP
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
>
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
> repository format is not documented"):
> > Michal Suchanek writes:
> >
CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
repository format is not documented"):
> Michal Suchanek writes:
> > [ discussions regarding documenting the apt repository format ]
>
> I woul
Michal Suchanek writes:
> Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
>> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
>> not documented"):
>> > Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed
Excerpts from David Kalnischkies's message of Thu May 17 18:21:59 +0200 2012:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek
> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
> >> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#67150
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek
wrote:
> Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
>> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
>> not documented"):
>> > Excerpts from Filipus Kl
Hello,
On 2012-05-17 13:48, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Admittedly there is no text in social contract about using
> Debian-proprietary formats. And a format only defined by "apt can read
> that" is definitely Debian-proprietary there is no better term for that.
>
> I'd say it's slightly discriminat
Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
> not documented"):
> > Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
> > >
Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is not
documented"):
> Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
> > Could you clarify how this differs from #481129?
>
> It's 4 years later.
>
> S
Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
> Could you clarify how this differs from #481129?
It's 4 years later.
Sorry, forgot that I filed the bug already. It's quite some time.
Given there is no feedback in 4 years I guess it is futile reporting
this.
Admitte
Could you clarify how this differs from #481129?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think debian-policy is the right repository for this. I think it would
> make the most sense to maintain this via a looser update method than the
> normal Policy process and to instead just apply any update that ftp-master
> says is in place
On 12836 March 1977, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> I would personal tend toward ftp-master to be the authority with reference
> implementation being dak, but they have no public mailinglist and dak isn't
> used by all derivatives…
debian-dak@lists.d.o
On 12836 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I
On Vie 04 May 2012 18:13:01 Russ Allbery escribió:
[big snip]
I think Russ' proposal is quite a nice solution.
Kinds regards, Lisandro.
--
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:
pi zz a
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer
David Kalnischkies writes:
> Completely ignoring the mail itself and just referring to the title
> (beside ignoring even the first word in that): "repository format is
> not documented" is a valid bug - and it should be documented for the
> benefit of people who write the various tools used to g
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Michal Suchanek
wrote:
> This, however, does not apply the apt-ftparchive. It is supposed to
> create the required files fully automatically. With the provided
> documentation I was able to make it do exactly nothing, fully
> automatically.
For the record: This was
On Fri, 04 May 2012 18:49:34 +0200
Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: important
>
> I wanted to create a repository of my own packages so that I can use the
> standard Debian tools to install these packages and resolve any
> dependencies automatically.
Use better tools - repr
Package: general
Severity: important
Hello,
I wanted to create a repository of my own packages so that I can use the
standard Debian tools to install these packages and resolve any
dependencies automatically.
However, there is no documentation of the format of these repositories.
There are mult
34 matches
Mail list logo
