Re: An alternative analysis of the etch architecture proposal
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:50:23PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> - issues with space on ftp.debian.org and on mirrors
> (especially hindering amd64)
> It might be a better point to start moving non-released architectures
> (GNU Hurd and sh) to a different location. Depending on what exactly
> hinders amd64 today, this might be sufficient .
No. The plan is definetly to get the main archive down from currently
over 100 GB to something way more reasonable (as there are currently planned
two archs, this would mean something between 30 and 40 GB) and to get the
needed daily pulses down from currently up to 2.5 GB.
> Regarding mirrors, offering only m architectures or offering only Debian
> stable for n architectures should be solvable on a per-mirror basis
> without any effect on the release management.
Separating ftp.d.o and scc.d.o from the beginning would make this way
more easy managable, though.
You're right that the distinction in ftp.d.o and scc.d.o has nothing to
do with release managment, for the release team only the distinction
between released and not-released arches is important, not how and where
they are mirrored.
Frank Lichtenheld <firstname.lastname@example.org>