Proposed changes to the xorg archive
dberkholz at gentoo.org
Mon Nov 27 23:40:31 PST 2006
Kevin E Martin wrote:
> Since the X11R7.0 release, several people have asked for some changes to
> how our archive is organized. The main complaints were:
> - Not everyone uses the branded packages from the various releases
> (i.e., the packages with the release version in the package name), and
> with the large number of packages, it is not easy to directly download
> or even find the unbranded packages.
> - For the minor releases (e.g., X11R7.1, etc) and release candidates,
> only the updated files are present, so it is not easy to know exactly
> which packages are part of a release.
> - For the minor releases, it is also not possible to tell if a package
> had been deprecated.
> - Some packages were put into the wrong directory.
> - The absolute symlinks made mirroring the archive difficult.
> So, what I've been working on is a way to address these and other issues
> with a minimal set of archive organizational changes, create a script
> that would allow an archive maintainer to maintain the archive in a sane
> state, and allow a release manager to more easily create releases.
[cropped to try to make things easier to parse]
> 3. For minor releases (e.g., 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, ...), we would have the
> following directory structure:
> Some of the benefits of this work are that:
> - it is easy to find either the branded or unbranded packages in a
> particular release
> - it is easy to find which packages have been updated in a particular
> minor release or a release candidate
> - it is easy for the release manager to create a new release candidate
> since all they would have to do is to symlink the packages that have
> been updated to the development/X11Rn.m-RCq/update/* dirs and run the
> - the script that I'm working on can also show which packages have been
> updated after a particular release.
> If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. If I don't
> hear any loud complaints, I'll go ahead and update the official archive
> in the next few days and take over maintenance of the archive.
Thanks for taking on this nearly thankless and arduous task!
I have a few questions.
What is the purpose of the "src/" subdirectory? To me, that reads as if
we anticipate providing binaries at some point. If so, why is there no
"src/" subdirectory for the individual/ releases? Perhaps it's an
accident of naming, but this seems like an optimal time to fix it by a
rename to "branded" or similar. I dislike the use of "official" for this
because it implies that releases by the individual module maintainers
are unofficial. I understand your goal of avoiding unnecessary
reorganization, but I think avoiding potential confusion is worth the trade.
Also, I don't really like the lack of parallelism where updated packages
are a level deeper than non-updated packages. I would rather see an
additional directory added to non-updated paths called "release" or
something along those lines.
Finally, how does this address one of your original points of it being
difficult to discover deprecated software? Perhaps addition of a
"deprecated" directory for X11RX.X releases would fix this.
More information about the xorg