Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes: >> Me too. I think it makes sense to have separate packages for the last n >> editions, where n is some reasonable number like 2 or 3 (sometimes we >> get behind in our magazine reading). But after that, why not just one >> big package for all the back issues, if they must be packaged? > Because that would imply a peak in traffic near the beginning of the > month, when you have to download the new 'lg-backissues' package. It may be possible to do packages for every quarter. The best option I heard until now. - It would include more work for ftpadmins (new override entry for every quartal package and removing of old lg-* package names from override file with each new quarter (i dont know if they see it as a problem, i just dont like that very much :) ). - A user that wants only one issue from a set that is in a quarter-package has to download the size of 4 packages. - A user that has the latest packages installed needs to download their data again at start of next quarter, without changes to them. Unneccessary traffic for him and bad if he/she/it pays for it. > Besides, linuxgazette is officially part of the LDP, created by 'the > community'. It is far from a 'usual' magazine. > I hear nobody complain about HOWTO's in the archive. Yes. > </ex-lg-maintainer hat> </-lg-maintainer hat> :) > I do agree that reducing the number of lg-* packages could be a good > idea, though. Yes. BTW: Today the lg-* packages in Debian are the same one can get from Upstream, ie. they deliver them as single tarballs for every month. Only lg-all|lg-subscription|lg-latest-two are additions for the benefit of our Users. -- bye Joerg 2.5 million B.C.: OOG the Open Source Caveman develops the axe and releases it under the GPL. The axe quickly gains popularity as a means of crushing moderators heads.
Attachment:
pgpplU1_2rsZ0.pgp
Description: PGP signature