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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Scripsit Daniel Kobras <kobras@debian.org>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:21:15AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

>> > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
>> > and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
>> > source.

>> As a mirror operator, I think that this sucks. Badly.

> What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
> including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
> subset?

It should be possible to mirror the whole shebang without duplicating
content. This means that there ought to be a way for a mirror to use a
common pool directory for source and _all packages, even if one also
mirrors IRREGULAR architectures with their own testing-like suites
that do not track the same versions as the REGULAR one.

Such functionality is, however, beyond what our current archive
scripts are capable of, so it won't happen unless somebody writes
and tests the code to achieve it.

I think it is fair enough for the ftpmasters and release team to
declare: "we are not going to develop that code". Unfortunately
the Vancouver text does not distinguish clearly between

  1. We are not going to do this. Others may, if they care enough.
  2. This will not get done.
  3. We're proposing rules which say nobody must do this.

which leads to misunderstandings [1]. I assume, however, that (1) is
what is really meant.

[1] See e.g. my own incessant whining about "unstable-only" earlier
    this week (with an outlying relapse yesterday - sorry, Anthony).

Henning Makholm                                  "Panic. Alarm. Incredulity.
                                   *Thing* has not enough legs. Topple walk.
                                  Fall over not. Why why why? What *is* it?"

Reply to: