On Monday 14 March 2005 18:37, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about > > architectures carried by the primary mirror network. We did consider > > having a single set of requirements for both "release architectures" and > > "primary mirror architectures", and the structure of the announcement > > might still reflect that, but I couldn't justify using "percent market > > share" as a straight criterion for release architectures. > > Release should be governed by the amount of developers, if the can > keep up, if the buildd works and so on. *Quality* > > Mirroring should be governed by the amount of users (as in downloads), > the amount of traffic for an arch. No point having more mirrors than > users. *Quantity* > > There might be 100 firms downloading to their proxy and maintaining 1 > million s390 systems (VMs) with 10 million users. Does s390 then get > kicked out of the release because they download efficiently, only 100 > downloads instead of 10 million?
To highlight Steves most important sentence: | This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about | architectures carried by the primary mirror network. And if s390 only needs 100 downloads per year, the don't need to be distributed on the mirrors, but can easily download from a central site. What a long ways to "Yes, you are right." Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15