[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ] Winfried Truemper: > One solution to this problem could be a directory ".everypackage" that is > not visible to the user but contains all packages. This would make it really painful to mirror only, say, frozen and unstable, but not stable. So it's not workable. > As a side-effect, some mirrors (even master) would save disks space as > long as the development- and stable-version differ not to much. It would > be even possible to store both on a CD. I don't understand how any space would be saved, since if stable and unstable share a version of a package, the file is in stable and unstable has a link to it. No files are duplicated in the current scheme, either. > - using codenames for a release is fun but it is also confusing; > it's behind what the average beginner can understand and of > little use for the developers because we don't catch the > interim-releases as 1.1.11 and such. I would vote to drop codenames. If we don't have code names, when we start work on version 2.0, we will have to create a directory called 2.0. This will confuse people, since it is not clear whether 2.0 has been released or not. We have already made this mistake once, and we must not make it again. Debian has now a large installed user base, and changes to the layout may not be done lightly. If we move all the files on the ftp site (as your proposal would require), then all mirrors will download a couple of gigabytes of data. This will kill many of them. -- Please read <http://www.iki.fi/liw/mail-to-lasu.html> before mailing me. Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list.
Description: PGP signature