On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:21:03AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 05:57:23AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 11:47:59AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > it seems like a very reasonable and responsible use of bandwidth to me. > > > > Seems to me that most people don't use all of the packages in debian, > > and are going to end up repeatedly downloading packages they'll never > > use. Seems far more responsible to use a web cache or shared apt archive > > directory and only download that subset of debian that's actually used. > > yes, that works well for some (perhaps most) people. > > it doesn't work all that well if: > > a) you install different packages on different machines Why not? In that case you're only downloading the packages once per machine anyway--how is that more efficient if the packages are mirrored rather than cached. Unless you're installing *all* packages on at least one machine, the mirror is still less efficient. > b) you want to be able to nfs mount your debian mirror so you can install > with dpkg -i as well as apt-get and dselect (this is particularly > useful if you mirror debian-incoming as well) Use apt-get -d to download but not install. I'm not sure why this is necessary, but what the heck. How often do you really need something out of incoming but can't wait till it gets in (and can wait until your next mirroring session?) But at least you can now download *every package* *twice* for *every version*. :-/ > c) you want the downloads to occur overnight when you're not using your > internet link. I forgot, apt-get -d can't be stuck in an at or cron job. > d) you want to upgrade NOW because you have enough free time to do it, > not in 10 mins or 3 hours time after the download has completed. Whoops, you've gone from 'mirroring is a responsible use of bandwidth' to 'I want instant gratification.' :-) -- Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpQODyoKHOz4.pgp
Description: PGP signature