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? I think if you specify multiple mirrors that apt may sort of do this already, but haven't read up enough to know exactly what happens.Maybe a way to test this is to put in several mirrors, do an update, and then tweak the firewall to block outgoing access to the first mirror on the list, then try to install something and see what happens when it can't access that first mirror. I'm willing to be (not much) that it'll fall down the list til it finds one that works, but that's just a guess and I don't have time right now to test it. 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? A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature