On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 12:02:20AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:08:05PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:41:26AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > > > Isn't it nuts that the Packages files get to the mirrors before the > > > .debs do? > > > Not particularly. I can see you think it's inconvenient for YOU. > > You don't think our mirrors being broken for 3 or more hours every day > is a problem? How in the world could this be an ok situation? I think that it would be a horrific problem if it affected a stable release. Does it? No. Does it affect a stable release at all? No. Does it affect a significant enough percentage of the packages in testing or unstable for it to be a serious problem? No. What about the reverse situation? If you update the Packages file last, then the *user* has a Packages file that may not match the contents of the mirror, rather than the mirror having one that doesn't match. And now he STILL can't install anything, and the mirror is claiming that the out-of-date Packages file he has is the most current one. Apologies if the mirror scripts already deal with files being obsoleted. Use of testing or unstable implies a certain level of intelligence. Next you're going to say that we should do something to make sure that a user doesn't have to use 'apt-get update' to make sure he has the latest Packages file before trying to install something, since, after all, that case would cause breakage as well. -- Marc Wilson | All warranty and guarantee clauses become null and msw@cox.net | void upon payment of invoice.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature