Re: Status of 'sarge' for the amd64 architecture
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:20:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > A silly question to you as release manager:
>
> > What exactly are the technical reasons why amd64 can't simply be shipped
> > as 12th architecture with sarge?
>
> We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
> mirrors due to the size of the archive. Some of our mirrors have had to
> choose between distributing Debian and distributing other stuff -- some pick
> one, some pick the other, but in either case it's bad for the users. The
> ftpmasters believe it is not in our interest to exacerbate this situation by
> adding another arch before a sensible per-arch partial mirroring solution is
> in place.
What are the technical problems with such a solution?
To be honest, I still do not understand why such an overly complicated
solution like in your SCC proposal was required.
Why can't a mirror who has a problem with the size of the Debian archive
use a tool like debmirror to create the subset it needs?
And if this was a problem for some mirrors, Debian could itself create a
few such subsets and offer them for mirrors from a different location.
Where is the technical problem behind the whole mirror issue that can't
be reasonable solved within a pretty short amount of time?
Perhaps I'm dumb, but as far as I understand it, there's no release
management reason against shipping amd64 with sarge, and it would both
be good for the reputation of Debian and prevent the required extra work
of maintaining amd64 for sarge externally if amd64 was included in
sarge.
That's why I'm trying to understand the technical problems behind
solving the mirror issue - and have failed to understand them.
> Steve Langasek
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: