Re: Release directories (was Re: [PATCH] setup: port to 64-bit, part 1)

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Mar 13 21:01, Yaakov wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:51:18 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > If Yaakov applied the changes necessary to get the 64 bit setup running
> > for a start, would it be possible to let upset create a setup64.ini file
> > for the current cygwin/64bit/release test area?
> 
> Before we do that, I think we need to consider a bit of
> reorganization.  As in any binary distribution, there are many "noarch"
> packages which could be used for both i686 and x86_64.  Providing two
> identical copies is just a waste of storage and bandwidth for
> sourceware, mirrors, and users.
> 
> Instead, I think it would make sense to make three sibling trees, one
> for i686 (the current release/ directory), one for x86_64, and one for
> noarch packages.  Then, there would be two scans by upset: setup.ini
> from i686 and noarch, and setup64.ini from x86_64 and noarch.
> 
> Thoughts?

Yes.  You're right of course.  This problem raises a few questions.

- How do we store the packages on sourceware?

  Probably the easiest is to split into three dirs, as you suggested.
  The naming is pretty irrelevant, but it might be best to use a
  target name as the directory base, as on Linux:

    release/
      arm4/
      i686/
      mips64/
      noarch/
      x86_64/

  Alternatively we could stick to the current "release" name for the
  i686 distro and use only new, parallel dirs for noarch and new targets:

    release/
    release.arm4/
    release.mips64/
    release.noarch/
    release.x86_64/

  Another problem is to move the existing noarch packages into the
  right dir when we start.  Well, at least this only has to be done
  once, baring any mistakes.

- For uploading packages it's important to know where the new package
  has to go.  Therefore, IMHO, it would make sense to change to a new
  package naming scheme, preferedly compatible with the versioning
  mechanism in upset, supported by cygport and easily recognizable by
  uploaders or upload scripts.

  Linux distros typically use the architecture after the version number:

    package-foo-1.2.3-4.i686.tar.bz2
    package-bar-5-6-7.noarch.tar.bz2

  However, for backward compatiblity with the current mechanism, would it
  make sense to reorder it for Cygwin packages like so:

    package-foo-i686-1.2.3-4.tar.bz2
    package-bar-noarch-5.6-7.tar.bz2

  ?

- Do we have to change the RFU rules to include always the arch?

  If we change the naming convention of packages to include the arch,
  probably not.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat