Am Monday 27 November 2006 08:53 schrieb Peter Czanik:
Hello,
Adrian Schröter wrote:
Actually, I do not want to touch the factory directories atm, because we
will anyway move them into the build service later. Changing it for that
timeframe does only cause problems IMHO.
What does it
Thanks a lot for all your comments, I have refined my proposal now
taking them into account!
How does this look? Are we fine to go for 10.2 and 10.3 with these?
Goals
=
* Clear naming
* Smaller repositories for faster metadata download
* Use structure for 10.3 again
Separate trees
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thanks a lot for all your comments, I have refined my proposal now
taking them into account!
How does this look? Are we fine to go for 10.2 and 10.3 with these?
100% ACK
Goals
=
* Clear naming
* Smaller
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 04:56:33PM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thanks a lot for all your comments, I have refined my proposal now
taking them into account!
How does this look? Are we fine to go for 10.2 and 10.3 with these?
[...]
Factory Distribution
The
On Monday 27 November 2006 02:56, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thanks a lot for all your comments, I have refined my proposal now
taking them into account!
I realise it's a bit late to comment now, but I am curious to know why you
have not mentioned the update repositories in this proposal?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jaeger schreef:
Thanks a lot for all your comments, I have refined my proposal now
taking them into account!
How does this look? Are we fine to go for 10.2 and 10.3 with these?
Goals
=
* Clear naming
* Smaller repositories
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
How does this look? Are we fine to go for 10.2 and 10.3 with these?
Goals
=
* Clear naming
* Smaller repositories for faster metadata download
* Use structure for 10.3 again
Separate trees
==
* OSS (factory)
* NON-OSS
Keith Goggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 27 November 2006 02:56, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thanks a lot for all your comments, I have refined my proposal now
taking them into account!
I realise it's a bit late to comment now, but I am curious to know why you
have not mentioned the
Naming
==
* let's use repository instead of catalog, inst-source etc.
This is the one I like best :)
Below .../opensuse/distribution/ we will have a factory-repo with
the following subdirectories:
Keep it symmetric and use factory/repo/ instead, as already suggested.
Nothing else that
Am Sunday 26 November 2006 17:22 schrieb Marcel Hilzinger:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 04:56:33PM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thanks a lot for all your comments, I have refined my proposal now
taking them into account!
How does this look? Are we fine to go for 10.2 and 10.3 with these?
Hello,
Adrian Schröter wrote:
Actually, I do not want to touch the factory directories atm, because we will
anyway move them into the build service later. Changing it for that timeframe
does only cause problems IMHO.
What does it mean for PPC users? No more 'factory', or there will be PPC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eberhard Moenkeberg schreef:
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
I've thought a bit about how to structure - and name - the directories
for openSUSE 10.2 and like to get your feedback and suggestions for
improvement.
Goals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hugo Costelha schreef:
On Friday 24 November 2006 14:53, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Friday 24 November 2006 15:03 schrieb Eberhard Moenkeberg:
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
I've thought a bit about how to structure - and name -
Am Freitag, 24. November 2006 14:47 schrieb Andreas Jaeger:
I've thought a bit about how to structure - and name - the directories
for openSUSE 10.2 and like to get your feedback and suggestions for
improvement.
Goals
=
My goals with the restructuring are:
* Clear naming - no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adrian Schröter schreef:
Am Friday 24 November 2006 16:42 schrieb Dominique Leuenberger:
Reply on 24-11-2006 17:40:53
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
/pub/opensuse/10.2 would be enough. Of course 10.2 is a distribution
and
I've thought a bit about how to structure - and name - the directories
for openSUSE 10.2 and like to get your feedback and suggestions for
improvement.
Goals
=
My goals with the restructuring are:
* Clear naming - no misunderstandings
* Smaller repositories for faster metadata download
*
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
I've thought a bit about how to structure - and name - the directories
for openSUSE 10.2 and like to get your feedback and suggestions for
improvement.
Goals
=
My goals with the restructuring are:
* Clear naming - no misunderstandings
Am Friday 24 November 2006 15:03 schrieb Eberhard Moenkeberg:
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
I've thought a bit about how to structure - and name - the directories
for openSUSE 10.2 and like to get your feedback and suggestions for
improvement.
Goals
=
My
On Friday 24 November 2006 14:53, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Friday 24 November 2006 15:03 schrieb Eberhard Moenkeberg:
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
I've thought a bit about how to structure - and name - the directories
for openSUSE 10.2 and like to get your feedback
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Hugo Costelha wrote:
It seems wuite intuitive to me. I also prefer longer names, if they are
easier
to remember and much easier to get some sense out of them, which I think is
the case here.
It does not take longer time to get a sense for a shorter word.
But
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
It does not take longer time to get a sense for a shorter word.
But directory listings have a chance to be readable and submitting URLs
has a chance not to get broken if the path names are short.
the length of
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Hugo Costelha wrote:
It seems wuite intuitive to me. I also prefer longer names, if they are
easier
to remember and much easier to get some sense out of them, which I think is
the case here.
It does not
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
Reply on 24-11-2006 17:40:53
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
/pub/opensuse/10.2 would be enough. Of course 10.2 is a distribution
and
repeating the opensuse does not help understanding the structure. I
also
On Friday 24 November 2006 15:15, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Hugo Costelha wrote:
It seems wuite intuitive to me. I also prefer longer names, if they are
easier to remember and much easier to get some sense out of them, which I
think is the case here.
It does
Am Friday 24 November 2006 16:42 schrieb Dominique Leuenberger:
Reply on 24-11-2006 17:40:53
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
/pub/opensuse/10.2 would be enough. Of course 10.2 is a distribution
and
repeating the opensuse does not help understanding the structure. I
Reply on 24-11-2006 18:00:45
Am Friday 24 November 2006 16:42 schrieb Dominique Leuenberger:
Reply on 24-11-2006 17:40:53
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
/pub/opensuse/10.2 would be enough. Of course 10.2 is a
distribution
and
repeating the opensuse
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 04:58:45PM +0100, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
you need to keep in mind that only a few users type these names at all.
I think this depends on whether you talk about iso images or repositories.
Your statement is most likely correct for the images but the repositories are
often
27 matches
Mail list logo
