[arch-dev-public] dbscripts pkg pools
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Mon May 3 18:19:35 CEST 2010
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de> wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 18:10:40 +0200, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de>
>>> What about a directory structure like this? We could also remove the os
>>> subdir and backwards compatibility could be achieved by some symlinks.
>>> └── repo
>>> ├── arch
>>> │ ├── core
>>> │ ├── extra
>>> │ ├── packages
>>> │ └── testing
>>> └── community
>>> ├── community
>>> ├── community-testing
>>> └── packages
>>> The actual names might not be final, but with this structure we separate
>>> our repos from everything else on the ftp and we separate the "official"
>>> and community repos from each other.
>> Here is a proposal which is more backwards-compatible and doesn't need a
>> complete resync; just a few modificatinos to the db-scripts. (e.g. we need
>> to define which repos the cleanup-script should check)
>> ├── core
>> ├── extra
>> ├── testing
>> ├── community
>> ├── community-testing
>> └── packages
>> ├── arch
>> │ ├── i686
>> │ ├── x86_64
>> │ └── any
>> └── community
>> ├── i686
>> ├── x86_64
>> └── any
>> The top dir repo dirs are kept. They include symlinks to the packages in
>> the packages dir. Packages from community are kept separate. We now just
>> need to modify the db-scripts and define the repository names it should
>> work on. (especialy the cleanup-script should only search in core,extra and
>> testing but not community for example.
>> The community, community-testing and packages/community dirs would still
>> be rsynced from sigurd.
>> What do you think about this layout? It wont need any chagne on the
>> clients (mirrorlists still work) and no resyncs are needed.
> In the spirit of this, I broke out the "packages" dir to a variable so
> that we can change it:
> On gerolde, it'd be packages/arch and on sigurd, packages/community (in theory)
Though... we'd still need to get rid of that silly "os" dir as part of this.
More information about the arch-dev-public