Re: RFC: implementation of package pools
Anthony Towns wrote:
> 20k packages probably imples about 100 gigabytes of archive space,
> multiplied by a factor for however many new architectures we start
> supporting. Depending on how much more bandwidth is common and how much
> disk space is available, we may well have other things to worry about
> than how well our hash function works or doesn't.
>
good point, let me think about the archive a bit. hmm distributed
archival system? [apt-proxy is not that] :) I could really write
one, you know I've done a lot of parallel programming so perhaps
that's what you need ;) And yep, parallel programming is not
something different from distributed programming.
that would actually be the first generally useful and entirely
legal such system :) [throw away freenet, it's java. yeah, i'm
prejudiced about java]
> Stuff in the future is inherently unpredictable outside of academia
> (inside of academia it's only predictable because you can say "assume
> these are the problems we'll face, how can we solve them"). Sure, keep
> an eye on what might happen next, but focus on making things work right
> *now*.
yea, rough consensus and working code, right? i guessed that, but it
was presented as the best implementation strategy (and it hadn't seemed
to me that way) i would rather write a new fs that does dirs and symbolic
links right :)
gimme some other problem to solve then :) you know we academics can't
really identify any problem in the real world. ha ha.
working on package categorization now, so you guys make sure that
you have some symlink-farm support :)
Cheers,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: