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

Re: Status of 'sarge' for the amd64 architecture

Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:

On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:26:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek 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.

Speaking as a second-level mirror maintainer, I can vouch that the size of the Debian archive is not all *that* large, as compared to other distributions. These are the numbers from a dh -h on the mirror I admin:

Debian:  	111GB
Debian-cd:	 51GB
Fedora:		152GB
Gentoo:		112GB
Mandrake:	240GB
RedHat:		 71GB

While others mirrors may very well be suffering from space constraints (where are these messages coming from? debian-mirros@l.d.o doesn't appear to be active at all), they do have the ability to use proper --exclude lines in rsync to avoid mirroring the debs from the archs that they don't want. I know it's not the best solution, as their Packages.gz file becomes bad, but it works.

I'd mirror the AMD64 right now, but I'd have to take portions of my mirror down to reallocate space to a new logical volume. If AMD64 were to go into the main mirror, I know I've got the space for it already allocated.

Just my $0.02

- --
  Branden J. Moore

Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/


Reply to: