On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Marco d'Itri (md@Linux.IT) [050319 03:50]: > > > On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org > > > > and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the > > > > source. > > > > > As a mirror operator, I think that this sucks. Badly. > > > > One _might_ consider to have ports.d.o with the full package pool, > > whereas ftp.d.o only consists the most wanted architectures. As a mirror > > operator, you can than choose to either just have the most wanted > > architectures, all or both. > Why not go the full way? What I've outlined in [1] is too obvious to > never have been thought before, but what is the reason not to do it > that way? I have no idea one way or another; neither Andi nor I are involved in the mirror implementation details. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature