Re: package splitting and kernel-image
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:55:53AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 07:57:50PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > * Unnecessary bloat, which doesn't help mirrors already having
> > trouble with load (especially aarnet).
>
> I think this proves my point regarding your frivolous bug reports.
No, it only proves that you can't/won't read an entire thread regarding this
issue, despite repeated pointers to do so.
> > * Encourages useless package-splitting.
>
> Who said anthing about useless? Completely subjective. I don't think
> that a larger number of smaller packages is a bad thing by any means.
No, but if it involves duplication, then it's useless.
> > The BTS can go read the thread. The BTS can read the replies. If the BTS
> > actually cares. Did I mention the bloat?
>
> Get real.
Well, I have repeatedly pointed you to another thread, and even given you
reasons in here, what more do you want?
> > Are you actually sure what you're talking about here? There is NO modularity
> > whatsoever involved in the kernel-* bloat. It's DUPLICATION.
>
> I was referring to ash. Are you even reading this thread, or is it write
> only? The subject: of the message refers to ash, for example.
Then we're a little confused. Not any more.
> > [1] At the time of the thread, both mirror.aarnet.edu.au and
> > ftp.au.debian.org had badly out-of-sync Packages files and actual packages -
> > I had to download about half of that dist-upgrade run via http.us, which is
> > painful when you're only on ISDN.
>
> ftp.monash.edu.au has Debian also. I have aarnet, ftp.au, ftp.monash
> and http.us in my sources.list.
Still, I think we can all agree that dead mirrors are sub-optimal.
--
Daniel Stone
daniel@kabuki.openfridge.net
Reply to: