Re: cdn.debian.net as a project service?
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:22:29AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > > What would it take to get cdn.debian.net become a service provided by
> > > > the project? In other words, cdn.debian.org, instead of cdn.debian.net.
> > [..]
> > > I'd really like to see support for sane mirror selection in apt itself,
> > > possibly with archive support (i.e. list of mirrors somewhere on
> > > ftp.d.o). That would allow apt to for instance retry on a different
> > > server if the first one it tried does not work for some reason, and
> > > maybe even report the problem to a central mirror.
> > There is a "mirror" method in apt since some time that is a bit of a
> > combined cdn/README.mirrors approach. Its not much used and probably
> > has some rough edges but should be a good starting point.
> Very nice!
> As mentioned on IRC it probably should tell me which mirror it downloads
> stuff from, when it does.
Yeah, this is one of the "rough edges" I mentioned. It will report the
mirror it was using on failure (and for debugging the info is
available with -o Debug::Acquire::mirror=true) but not otherwise
> > and the server returns a list of "good" mirrors (based on something
> > like geoip) for your location as a simple text list. This is done on
> > apt-get update. After that it uses a selected miror of that list to do
> > the actual update and for getting the packages. The list is stored
> > locally in /var/lib/apt/mirrors so that a re-query is not needed for
> > each download request. It supports fallback to the next mirror if
> > there are problems and also reporting back issues (via a external
> > helper).
> It seems that fallback is broken. I made the first mirror in AT.txt
> broken (see http://auto-beta.debian.org/debian/per-cc/AT.txt, or use
> deb mirror://auto-beta.debian.org/debian/per-cc/AT.txt squeeze main
> I guess):
Indeed it is, I just reproduced it and put a fix in my apt branch (and
in the debian-sid branch too). Its a tiny one line fix.
> > One missing feature is that it needs to send along info about the
> > release/arch its looking for or the returned list needs to be extended
> > to include this info. But otherwise it should be good and working.
> Yup, that'd be nice also.
My preference would be for apt to send the info to the server and let
the server do something about it, does that sound reasonable? I have
no opinion about the format: