Re: Debian's problems, Debian's future
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 02:27:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 03:16:21PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:25:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Rather than having a diff from the old version straight to the current
> > > version (which means remirroing those files each time, and keeping all
> > > the old Packages files around), it'd probably be better to have people
> > > who're x days out of date download x diffs.
> > Which is how Ben Bell's apt-pupdate does it.
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg01303.html
> > Jules 'apt-pupdate evangelist extraordinaire' Bean
>
> Better urls are:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bjb/
> and http://ftp-master.debian.org/~bjb/pdiffs/
>
> Is the "md5sum <-> dates mapping + diffs by date" (bjb's) method particularly
> better or worse than the "diffs by md5sum" (dancer's) one?
I discussed that with bjb at the time. My proposal was dancer's
method. The diffs by date makes it slightly clearer to the user
what's going on.
>
> Are there any indications on how many days worth of diffs should be
> kept around? Two? A week's worth? A month's worth?
A week's worth seems a rough guide.
>
> Is there anything else interesting that you've realised after actually
> using it for a while?
Not really. I can attest that it definitely seems worth your while if
you apt-pupdate every 3 or 4 days.
I suspect there would be another speed jump if the script could be
persuaded to use HTTP Keep-Alive and not keep opening new connections,
too. The new connection overhead seems significant on such small
files.
Jules
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: