[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Freezing" non-free and contrib



[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]

Winfried Truemper:
> If we assume that the links are updated automatically in the new directory
> tree (every other approach would be the hell for the maintainter), it
> would we possible to create an actual file-list for each release which
> could be used by the mirror-sites to fetch only certain files.

This would mean that Debian mirroring would have to be done by
special programs, not using the standard mirroring tools. Not
workable. Sorry.

Also, putting thousands of files in the same directory makes
directory lookups slower.

> Such files could be used to mirror even with finer granularity: only
> i386 from "frozen" and "unstable". (The advantage is that they would be
> generated automatically.)

This is already simple to do with the standard mirror tool. I do it.

> How do you know from a codename like "bo" or "rex" if it's released or
> not? I didn't refer to the links "stable" and "unstable", they are a must.

Your suggestion is to replace the code name with the version
number.  That change will confuse people and will make Debian
look bad. even if the stable link doesn't point at the new
version number. The code names do not themselves give any
indication of release status, the version number does. Therefore,
the code names are a better choice.

I don't think we need or want to do any big changes to how the
ftp site is set up. There are a few small things we could do
to make the root clearer, such as:

	remove Incoming and WebPages, since they're empty
	
	move debian-lists, indices below project

I don't care whether contrib and non-free stay as they are, or
whether we create two new trees, contrib-stable and non-free-stable.
	
-- 
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.


Attachment: pgpkUtaFjbZZ9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: