Re: Status of 'sarge' for the amd64 architecture
* Steve Greenland (steveg@moregruel.net) [050425 16:45]:
> On 23-Apr-05, 17:24 (CDT), Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
> > Beyond the fact that it is too late to add another architecture for
> > sarge, removing arm from sarge does not make the mirror pulses much
> > smaller - and AFAIK the size of the mirror pulses is the main problem.
> See, that just makes no sense whatsover. You can claim either:
>
> 1) Adding AMD64 would increase the mirror load unacceptably
>
> OR
>
> 2) Removing ARM would not have a significant effect on the mirror load
>
>
> but not both at the same time. (Yes, I realize that two different people
> made these claims, but which one am I supposed to believe?)
Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
binary arm packages being pushed each day, as the packages between
testing and unstable are shared (and only few packages go in via t-p-u).
So, the only win is that packages are faster removed - but as unstable
and testing are quite in sync, even this is not so much difference.
Adding a new arch however adds a lot of new binary packages to be pushed
each day (and, for the sanity of the mirrors, we should probably take
20-30 days [just as guess, I didn't start calculate the number] for the
initial pushing in of any new arch to restrict the maximum new binary
packages on each day).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: