HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

In order to better manage upload permissions, effective immediately, 
each and every current primary/source package has its own directory 
directly underneath $arch/release.  Those packages that were previously 
nested have been moved accordingly, for example:

x86/release/db/*
x86/release/singular/*
$arch/release/ghostscript/ghostscript-fonts-*/
$arch/release/libggi/*
$arch/release/mingw64-i686/*
$arch/release/mingw64-x86_64/*
$arch/release/octave/octave-* (those not actual subpackages of 'octave')
$arch/release/perl/perl-* (those not actual subpackages of 'perl')
$arch/release/python/python-* (those not actual subpackages of 'python')
$arch/release/SuiteSparse/*
$arch/release/TeX/*
$arch/release/unison/*
$arch/release/X11/*

So please remember when you upload from now on, all packages go straight 
into $arch/release/.

Thanks,

Yaakov

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Thomas Wolff]

Am 12.08.2014 01:45, schrieb Yaakov Selkowitz:
> In order to better manage upload permissions, effective immediately, 
> each and every current primary/source package has its own directory 
> directly underneath $arch/release.  Those packages that were 
> previously nested have been moved accordingly, for example:
>
> x86/release/db/*
> x86/release/singular/*
> $arch/release/ghostscript/ghostscript-fonts-*/
> ...
>
> So please remember when you upload from now on, all packages go 
> straight into $arch/release/.
While revising the upload structure, please consider folding out the 
source package (e.g. into no-arch/ or src/) because it's not a 
convincing burden to have to upload the same package twice.
Thanks
Thomas

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1015 bytes --]

On Aug 12 09:45, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Am 12.08.2014 01:45, schrieb Yaakov Selkowitz:
> >In order to better manage upload permissions, effective immediately, each
> >and every current primary/source package has its own directory directly
> >underneath $arch/release.  Those packages that were previously nested have
> >been moved accordingly, for example:
> >
> >x86/release/db/*
> >x86/release/singular/*
> >$arch/release/ghostscript/ghostscript-fonts-*/
> >...
> >
> >So please remember when you upload from now on, all packages go straight
> >into $arch/release/.
> While revising the upload structure, please consider folding out the source
> package (e.g. into no-arch/ or src/) because it's not a convincing burden to
> have to upload the same package twice.

Yes, that's something we should certainly contemplate medium-term.


Corinna

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 10:59 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 12 09:45, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> > While revising the upload structure, please consider folding out the source
> > package (e.g. into no-arch/ or src/) because it's not a convincing burden to
> > have to upload the same package twice.
> 
> Yes, that's something we should certainly contemplate medium-term.

upset doesn't like having the same package in multiple locations, so I'm
not sure if the -src packages can be separate.

However, what I did suggest earlier was to have a separate
noarch/release hierarchy for entirely noarch packages, which would
prevent having to upload noarch twice:

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-03/msg00126.html

I do this with Ports and it works quite well, but then again I'm the
only one uploading there.


Yaakov

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1220 bytes --]

On Aug 15 12:21, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 10:59 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 12 09:45, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> > > While revising the upload structure, please consider folding out the source
> > > package (e.g. into no-arch/ or src/) because it's not a convincing burden to
> > > have to upload the same package twice.
> > 
> > Yes, that's something we should certainly contemplate medium-term.
> 
> upset doesn't like having the same package in multiple locations, so I'm
> not sure if the -src packages can be separate.
> 
> However, what I did suggest earlier was to have a separate
> noarch/release hierarchy for entirely noarch packages, which would
> prevent having to upload noarch twice:
> 
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-03/msg00126.html
> 
> I do this with Ports and it works quite well, but then again I'm the
> only one uploading there.

Shouldn't be much of a difference, as long as the upload script
understands a noarch dir parallel to the x86 and x86_64 dirs,
isn't it?


Corinna

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 22:11 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 15 12:21, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: 
> > However, what I did suggest earlier was to have a separate
> > noarch/release hierarchy for entirely noarch packages, which would
> > prevent having to upload noarch twice:
> > 
> > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-03/msg00126.html
> > 
> > I do this with Ports and it works quite well, but then again I'm the
> > only one uploading there.
> 
> Shouldn't be much of a difference, as long as the upload script
> understands a noarch dir parallel to the x86 and x86_64 dirs,
> isn't it?

A few things would have to be changed on the infrastructure side, but I
think it's doable.  The biggest issue may be that maintainers need to
mark their packages ARCH=noarch as appropriate, and then remember to
upload to a separate directory.  The latter could be simplified with the
"cygport upload" proposal, should we decide to do this with noarch in
the first place.


Yaakov

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Achim Gratz]

Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
> A few things would have to be changed on the infrastructure side, but I
> think it's doable.  The biggest issue may be that maintainers need to
> mark their packages ARCH=noarch as appropriate, and then remember to
> upload to a separate directory.  The latter could be simplified with the
> "cygport upload" proposal, should we decide to do this with noarch in
> the first place.

That only really works for pure noarch packages of which there aren't
all that many.  As you say, this is doable today with not too much
manual work.  A larger benefit would be to split "normal" packages into
their arch and noarch part (roughly, between executables and scripts and
documentation).  That was one of the reasons I'd have preferred multiple
build directories in the same work directory for cygport, but we're
having something different now.

In any case, setup.exe is much more flexible than most people give it
credit for, I'm using my own install hierarchy layout with three
parallel package trees (cygwin, cygport and patches) and three branches
below that (noarch, x86 and x86_64), although noarch is empty for
cygwin.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptation for Waldorf microQ V2.22R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 22:46 +0200, Achim Gratz wrote:
> That only really works for pure noarch packages of which there aren't
> all that many. 

There are more than you think.  In Ports, over 46% of the source
packages are completely noarch.

> As you say, this is doable today with not too much
> manual work.  A larger benefit would be to split "normal" packages into
> their arch and noarch part (roughly, between executables and scripts and
> documentation).

This would result in a single package being uploaded into multiple
directories; I'm not sure how practical that would be to implement.


Yaakov

Re: HEADSUP MAINTAINERS: flat upload layout

[Thomas Wolff]

Am 15.08.2014 19:21, schrieb Yaakov Selkowitz:
> On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 10:59 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 12 09:45, Thomas Wolff wrote:
>>> While revising the upload structure, please consider folding out the source
>>> package (e.g. into no-arch/ or src/) because it's not a convincing burden to
>>> have to upload the same package twice.
>> Yes, that's something we should certainly contemplate medium-term.
> upset doesn't like having the same package in multiple locations, so I'm
> not sure if the -src packages can be separate.
?? This doesn't seem to address what I was suggesting.
Right now, the srce packages for x86 and x86_64 *have* to be separate, 
although they are identical.
And the simple ftp server doesn't even support the ln (hard link) option 
that sftp and lftp provide,
much to my annoyance when I first uploaded a new package myself and 
wanted to optimise the procedure, considering my slow upload link (of a 
typical asymmetric subscriber line, maybe you have different access in 
your country and don't care...).
Thomas

> However, what I did suggest earlier was to have a separate
> noarch/release hierarchy for entirely noarch packages, which would
> prevent having to upload noarch twice:
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-03/msg00126.html
>
> I do this with Ports and it works quite well, but then again I'm the
> only one uploading there.
>
>
> Yaakov
>
>


---
Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv.
http://www.avast.com