re: proposal for a more efficient download process
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <he@ftwca.de> wrote:
>Nope. You will need to keep all normal debs anyway, for new
>installations.
i thought it could be possible in the end to download the tree-package
and all its patches to then have the latest package for a new install!
so i thought there will be no more need for a lot of full packages. is
it not? one of the advantages could be that you have more versions
available then just the latest - this would be great for sid!
>Now the interesting questions: How many diffs do you keep?
i thought of keeping the tree-package and its patches as long it makes
sence. for example if there is a next-version package and the patches
would grow to big, there will come up a new tree-package. well, yes, it
is difficult to think this through, but anyway!
>How do you
>integrate this approach with the minimal security Release files give us
>today? What about the kind of signatures dpkg-sig provides?
sure. this proposal would require a lot of changes not just a few. but
as i have suggested not to make a .deb oriented but a file oriented
patchment, the new package will be created on the users system with the
downloaded patch(es). so in the end, there will be a .deb package in the
cache and it will just install as always. if you make a package-mirror-
update to look for updates, it just will show there is a new package.
the user will not find out that it just downloads the patches.
hope that answers your question. i am not quite sure. i am new!
so please try to ask in another way if this does not satisfy you!
thank's :-)
--
greetings from austria
well, though i think i can't fix that problem, but i believe i can make
a workaround!
*********************
curt manucredo
hansycm@a1.net
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
--------------------------------------
Reply to: