Re: Status of 'sarge' for the amd64 architecture
* Martin Waitz (tali@admingilde.org) [050429 15:40]:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
> > binary arm packages being pushed each day, as the packages between
> > testing and unstable are shared (and only few packages go in via t-p-u).
> > So, the only win is that packages are faster removed - but as unstable
> > and testing are quite in sync, even this is not so much difference.
> > Adding a new arch however adds a lot of new binary packages to be pushed
> > each day
>
> well, those should be about as much as are saved by removing another
> arch -- once the new architecture is uptodate in testing and unstable.
Actually, that is exactly what is planned post-sarge (well, not removing
an arch, but splitting the archive so that mirrors are only required to
carry some of our current architectures). There is a simple reason why
we don't do it now: We prefer to use the ftp-masters time for resolving
issues we need to release sarge. (And, BTW, of course an architecture
won't be considered for inclusion in sarge unless we have tested it for
a decent time in unstable, so even adding amd64 to sid today won't make
it an sarge architecture, except if we want to delay sarge even more.)
> * too much bandwith needed to update all mirrors.
>
> do all mirrors sync with ftp-master? would it help to establish
> a mirror hierarchy where only a few selected mirrors are allowed
> to connect to our master server?
This is already the case. But there are places where our _mirrors_
bandwith is too expansive to make the daily pushes even larger.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: