1 |
On Thursday 15 December 2011 00:39:44 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wednesday 14 December 2011 18:43:33 Alec Warner wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Leho Kraav <leho@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> >> > i'd be really happy if someone took care of |
6 |
> >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/150031 :> |
7 |
> >> > |
8 |
> >> > "include more info about binpkg in file name" |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> That is great, but its not a 6 month project... |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > is it though ? i'm inclined to mark INVALID. hijacking filenames for |
13 |
> > metadata is a tuuuuuuuuuuurrible idea. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I agree. It's along the same lines as only using file extensions for |
16 |
> determining the filetype (and we all know how that turned out...). It |
17 |
> *does* have the advantage of being really fast, though. |
18 |
|
19 |
it just doesn't scale though (encoding all metadata into the filename quickly |
20 |
hits filesystem limits on name length), and i think the speed increase is only |
21 |
to a limit. once you get into larger repos, using the already existing |
22 |
"Packages" file would be faster. and since that compresses, it should scale a |
23 |
lot nicer. |
24 |
|
25 |
> Nevertheless, the basic bug is about changing the distfile repository |
26 |
> format in such a way that a single repo can contain several distfiles |
27 |
> built with differing build conditions. Putting metadata in the |
28 |
> filename is only one way of ensuring that. |
29 |
|
30 |
sounds like the summary needs updating then by someone who has waded through |
31 |
all the followup comments ;) |
32 |
-mike |