Re: apt-get improvement idea
David Kalnischkies <kalnischkies+debian@gmail.com> writes:
>> [17:31] <mrvn> ebrahim: If you patch it then please add an priority option
>> (as in deb [pri=<N>] url suite component). Make it round-robin only
>> between sources with equal priority and default to the line number (or
>> something) so the old behaviour remains.
>
> Use case? Why someone should want to prefer the download of the SAME
> version from a trusted mirror instead of another trusted mirror.
> If the versions were different it is different obviously, but in this case the
> option to choose between the two for downloading doesn't exist
> in the first place?
Because I don't care wether a package comes from ftp.de.debian.org or
ftp2.de.debian.org. But I don't want it to come from ftp.debian.org as
that is way slower. So sources.list would look like this:
deb [pri=1] http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian stable main
deb [pri=1] http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian stable main
deb [pri=2] http://ftp.debian.org/debian stable main
Probably more relevant for security as that can be rather slow and the
mirrors aren't official.
With the current behaviour apt always downloads security updates from
the fast local mirror if available. Using the pri=<N> option would
preserve that behaviour while it also allows configuring round-robin for
mirrors that are equivalent. And I want the current behaviour to remain
while I can see the other people want round-robin.
> Not your fault as it is currently a bit confusing, but have a look at the
> experimental repository as the current experimental releases are based
> on that one. It includes also a draft implementation of the mirror-protocol
> which you might find interesting?
> http://bzr.debian.org/apt/apt/debian-experimental-ma/
> And maybe have a look at "bzr send".
>
>
> Oh and btw, i don't want to sound like a babbitt but i don't see in the log
> that you asked the participators for their permission to publish the log.
> It is questionable if an IRC channel like #d-d isn't already public enough,
> but in general the content of an IRC channel is volatile and limited to the
> audience in the channel at that time - while a mailinglist archive is open
> for everyone to read also in twenty years from now on.
>
> And as a second btw: A more precise title would be fabulous next time?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Kalnischkies
PS: A reason why multiple connections might be better is the tcp window
handling. You might not get your full bandwidth utilized with a single
connect because the product of RTT and window size is less than your
bandwith. That easily happens for DSL where the limited upload seriously
harms the download.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: