Ron Stodden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>
> > > 1. How did your CTO respond to the need for an addditional first
> > > stage install floppy disk image to support install from an iso file?
> >
> > don't know, i did not ask him the question [nor was i informed i should
> > have?]
>
> Oh yes you were - it has been well covered in my contributions here.
:-)
being carbon-copied to him, on your request.
> >
> > > 2. How did your CTO respond to the need for a constant single name
> > > for the most current beta iso image? This requirement is dictated to
> >
> > i'm not sure i understand what is your request..
>
> Repeated (it IS important!):
>
> This requirement is dictated to permit incremental download of
> [iso image file] changes by rsync. Without this
> constraint on your operations, beta-testers will be faced with a
> complete near 1 GB download every time the beta iso is changed, which
> is totally unnecessary and an enormous load on your server and its
> mirrors - rsync downloads only the changes within the server file and
> edits them into the local client file.
>
> No version information may be carried in the file name - this is a
> general requirement for efficient rsync operation. You have a
> VERSION file in the base directory, this is where the detailed
> version and timestamp information must be. The iso image can be
> mounted on the loop device to access this VERSION file.
Okay, I understand now. This is a very good idea to save bandwidth. The
only problem that could stay, is that people will have less visibility on
the different versions of the ISO.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
