Re: magazine packagine (was Re: Bug#181860: ITP: phrack-issueXX -- Phrack Magazine Issues)
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: magazine packagine (was Re: Bug#181860: ITP: phrack-issueXX -- Phrack Magazine Issues)
- From: Michael Schuerig <schuerig@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:37:06 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] b35v52$jcc$01$1@news.t-online.com>
- References: <20030221180020$1bca@gated-at.bofh.it> <20030221180020$5d41@gated-at.bofh.it> <20030221180020$6598@gated-at.bofh.it> <20030221180020$4a46@gated-at.bofh.it>
Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
>> Me too. I think it makes sense to have separate packages for the last
>> n editions, where n is some reasonable number like 2 or 3 (sometimes
>> we get behind in our magazine reading). But after that, why not just
>> one big package for all the back issues, if they must be packaged?
>
> That's an interesting thought. One disadvantage of a archive of issues
> is that it would have to be redownloaded everytime an a new issue is
> added to the archive. Though separate issues do increase the size of
> the Packages file, they reduce the need to download updates to
> multi-megabyte archives.
You could keep two archives, one for the current (yearly?) volume,
another for all back-volumes. The back-volume package would be big, but
stable; the current-volume package would change often, but would be
small.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig They tell you that the darkness
mailto:schuerig@acm.org is a blessing in disguise.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Janis Ian, "From Me To You"
Reply to: