Re: Tracking KDE on unstable
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:29:04PM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> It seems that tracking KDE on unstable is a huge bandwidth hog - every
> time I update my system I am faced with a more than 40M download, and it
> seems that 35M of that is KDE, every time.
> Is there any sensible reason why so much is changed every time?
Does a technical reason count as sensible? That's just how the
packages work. Often many packages have to be recompiled together,
(because of interdepencies, or simply because they come from the same
source package), and no matter how minor a change, if the maintainer
decides it justifies a new upload, they all get recompiled...
One can conceive of solutions, but they all require significant
> This must be an absolute nightmare for the mirrors - I know that it is
> certainly a big cost for our local mirror since we mostly have to pay
> per MB to get them in New Zealand.
I've no idea. I'm not aware of any complaints, but I'm not on the
admin team, so maybe I wouldn't know about them. AFAIK most mirrors
are donated by organisations and universities whose disk-space and
bandwidth usage is so large anyway that the mirror is not a big issue.