Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Sven Luther <email@example.com> writes:
> I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop mirror
> support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive
> support :
> 1) tier 1 arches, fully mirrored and released.
One full set of sources, 10G.
> 2) tier 2 arches, mostly those that we are dropping, maybe mirrored from
> scc.debian.org in a secondary mirror network. (why not ftp.debian.org/scc
> though ?).
Second set of identical sources, +10G == 20G.
> 3) tier 3 arches, or in development arches, available on
> ftp.debian.org/in-devel or something.
Third set of identical sources, +10G == 30G.
Only if all 3 are on the same server can the sources be hardlinked and
getting those hardlinks preserved to mirrors is tricky.
> I don't see how having the in-devel arches be hosted on alioth
> instead on the official debian ftp server would cause a problem.
> Also, i don't understand why scc.debian.org is better than ftp.debian.org/scc,
> really, ideally we could have /debian, /debian-scc, and /debian-devel or
> something such. Is it really a physical problem fro ftp-master to held all
> these roles ? What is it exactly that ftp-masters want to drop all these
> arches for ?
> Mirrors could then chose to go with 1) only (most of them will), or also
> mirror 2) and/or 3).
Why not just /debian as we have now. That means all sources are in
debian/pool/ just once. And mirrors can choose to exclude archs from
the mirrors as many (non primary) mirrors already do. The know-how for
partial mirrors is there and nothing needs to be invented for it.
I fail to see why the mirror situation should have an (changing)
impact on the archive layout and I fail to see how splitting the
archive, and thereby duplicating sources, helps mirrors that want
more than just i386/ppc/amd64.
> Sven Luther