From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E29AB1382C5 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C03FBE0C79; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71089E0C40 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4532B335C38; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:40:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1517136016.1270.14.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Split distfile mirror directory structure From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:40:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <23149.42112.283910.738763@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <1517009079.31015.3.camel@gentoo.org> <23149.41634.800359.851461@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1517134582.1270.12.camel@gentoo.org> <23149.42112.283910.738763@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: b956323d-94eb-49be-beb4-a398943bfd8c X-Archives-Hash: 139864a0c9e5bdf45ccf728c665e5330 W dniu nie, 28.01.2018 o godzinie 11∶22 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > This specification currently defines one section: ``[structure]``. > > > > This section defines one or more repository structure definitions > > > > using sequential integer keys. The definition keyed as ``0`` > > > > is the most preferred structure. The package manager should use > > > > the first structure format it recognizes as supported, and ignore any > > > > it does not recognize. If this section is not present, the package > > > > manager should behave as if only ``flat`` structure were supported. > > > > > > It is not at all clear from this how integer keys are ordered. The > > > paragraph only says that "0" is most preferred, but says nothing about > > > comparison of other numbers. > > > > > > For example, if there are keys "-1", "0", and "1" (these are > > > "sequential integer keys", right?), what is their order of preference? > > Please suggest a better wording. The idea was to use 0=, 1=, 2=... > > "... using non-negative integer keys. The definition with the > smallest key is the most preferred structure. The package manager > should ignore any formats it does not recognize." > > Ulrich How about this then: | This specification currently defines one section: ``[structure]``. | This section defines one or more repository structure definitions | using non-negative sequential integer keys. The definition with | the ``0`` key is the most preferred structure. The package manager | should ignore any formats it does not recognize. If this section | is not present, the package manager should behave as if only ``flat`` | structure were specified. I don't want people to skip numbers, and I want to avoid confusion between 0/1 as initial number. -- Best regards, Michał Górny