Re: little? apt suggestion (master timestamp file)
> On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 06:29:27PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Sarel Botha wrote:
> >
> > > what i usually do is run an update after the rename anyway, if it's the same
> > > Packages file it doesn't download again, else it does. But what I would do in
> > > the program is do a check before doing the rename, just like apt does a check
> > > before downloading a Packages file.
> >
> > This doesn't work as well as you'd like due to timezone skew, evil ftp
> > servers and ftp mirrors :< The timestamp is only reliable over small sets
> > of mirrors.
Would it be reasonable to include a version/timestamp file on the master
server that would get picked up by the mirrors? So the first thing apt
does is downloads this version file from the mirror (which is all of 20
bytes or so), and compares it to the version of the Packages file it
already has, and uses that to decide if this mirror is close-enough to
being in sync with its current information?
The main packages file isn't exactly small these days, and this would
help mirror-hopping in the event of congestion local to your favourite
mirror...
--
Kevin.Turner@oberlin.edu | OpenPGP encryption welcome here, see X-DSA-Key
Reply to: