Re: Preferred Mirrors for Apt
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 22:27, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:26:04PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 December 2006 21:48, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 08:17:14PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:35, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> > > > > > David Baron:
> > > > > > > ALL the alternatives available are in /etc/apt/sources.list. I
> > > > > > > do not want to delete access to ftp.us.debiian.org. I want the
> > > > > > > local mirrors to be tried first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is absolutely no reason to keep several official mirrors in
> > > > > > your sources.list. They all contain the same software (that's why
> > > > > > they are called mirrors). On 'apt-get update', apt will download
> > > > > > all package lists from every mirror, but on 'install' it will
> > > > > > only use the first mirror mentioned in your sources.list anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your primary mirror is unreliable, pick another one or keep
> > > > > > entries using a different mirror *commented out* in your
> > > > > > sources.list and enable them only when your primary mirror freaks
> > > > > > out. Otherwise, you are abusing bandwidth donated to the Debian
> > > > > > project.
> > > > >
> > > > > this seems like another good time to mention apt-spy. very useful.
> > > >
> > > > Should have a look at that.
> > > >
> > > > A wishlist for apt-get. EVERYONE will be using stock
> > > > stable/unstable/testing groups of packages. So these packages could
> > > > have a 1st-mirror, 2nd-mirror, etc. Special packages such as
> > > > systemimage, qmail, etc., would be specified in sources.list as now.
> > >
> > > are you saying that certain core packages should come from the master
> > > archive only and all others from the mirror? You may be able to do
> > > this in apt.conf somehow. How about just double checking the md5 sums
> > > from the master archive? regardless, ISTM that the odds of any one
> > > mirror being compromised are about the same and why the master archive
> > > wouldn't necessarily be compromised is beyond me. IOW, I don't see the
> > > advantage to what you propose.
> >
> > No. The main packages are taken from the mirror but since everyone is
> > using these packages, one can specified a list of preferred mirrors and
> > they can be tried until one works. I want unstable from mirror1,if not
> > mirror 2, etc.
>
> I see, you want the core stuff to automatically come from anyone of a
> number of mirrors automagically. Then the other stuff can come from
> whatever mirror one chooses. Well, I personally fail to see how useful
> this would be, but then I've not had mirror problems (knock-wood). But
> to each their own right?
> * * *
> oh, and why exactly go to the bother of specifying a mirror for the
> non-main packages once you've got a system set up for the core stuff?
> genuinely curious here -- what is the advantage to having redundancy
> for the core stuff and not for the rest?
If you have it working, then, why bother to change it?
However, with the scheme I propose, all Debian packages would be taken care
of. Other stuff like qmail, systemimage, stuff that one needs a repository
other than Debian's own mirrors, would need be explicitely listed.
Reply to: