Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop mirror > support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive > support : > > 1) tier 1 arches, fully mirrored and released.
One full set of sources, 10G. > 2) tier 2 arches, mostly those that we are dropping, maybe mirrored from > scc.debian.org in a secondary mirror network. (why not ftp.debian.org/scc > though ?). Second set of identical sources, +10G == 20G. > 3) tier 3 arches, or in development arches, available on > ftp.debian.org/in-devel or something. Third set of identical sources, +10G == 30G. Only if all 3 are on the same server can the sources be hardlinked and getting those hardlinks preserved to mirrors is tricky. > I don't see how having the in-devel arches be hosted on alioth > instead on the official debian ftp server would cause a problem. > > Also, i don't understand why scc.debian.org is better than ftp.debian.org/scc, > really, ideally we could have /debian, /debian-scc, and /debian-devel or > something such. Is it really a physical problem fro ftp-master to held all > these roles ? What is it exactly that ftp-masters want to drop all these > arches for ? > > Mirrors could then chose to go with 1) only (most of them will), or also > mirror 2) and/or 3). Why not just /debian as we have now. That means all sources are in debian/pool/ just once. And mirrors can choose to exclude archs from the mirrors as many (non primary) mirrors already do. The know-how for partial mirrors is there and nothing needs to be invented for it. I fail to see why the mirror situation should have an (changing) impact on the archive layout and I fail to see how splitting the archive, and thereby duplicating sources, helps mirrors that want more than just i386/ppc/amd64. > Friendly, > > Sven Luther MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]