[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ,deb's follow Packages files to mirrors: nuts or what?

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 12:13:10PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> 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.

Sure it does; this bug affects stable every time there's a point

Though my gut feeling is that the majority of downloads from the Debian
mirrors pull from testing/unstable anyway -- not by volume of users, but
because testing/unstable users have systems needing much more frequent
updates.  Problems should not be dismissed just because they only affect
testing and unstable.

> Does it affect a significant enough percentage of the packages in testing
> or unstable for it to be a serious problem?  No.

Sure it is; the percentage of users affected by the problem is not
directly proportional to the percentage of packages updated on a given

> 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 out-of-date Packages file he has is the most current one.

You clearly didn't read the parts of this thread where people discussed
correct, two-pass methods of mirroring the archive that ensure the files
available on all mirrors are self-consistent at all times.[1]

> Use of testing or unstable implies a certain level of intelligence.

Running a mirror does, too.  Please stop defending broken mirror
implementations.  The only thing this does is ensure that users will
switch to a different mirror.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

[1] Technically, to have this true at *all* times requires three passes,
but two passes gets close enough that the period of unusability is

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: