On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 03:50:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050429 15:40]: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of > > > binary arm packages being pushed each day, as the packages between > > > testing and unstable are shared (and only few packages go in via t-p-u). > > > So, the only win is that packages are faster removed - but as unstable > > > and testing are quite in sync, even this is not so much difference. > > > Adding a new arch however adds a lot of new binary packages to be pushed > > > each day > > > > well, those should be about as much as are saved by removing another > > arch -- once the new architecture is uptodate in testing and unstable. > > Actually, that is exactly what is planned post-sarge (well, not removing > an arch, but splitting the archive so that mirrors are only required to > carry some of our current architectures). There is a simple reason why > we don't do it now: We prefer to use the ftp-masters time for resolving > issues we need to release sarge. (And, BTW, of course an architecture > won't be considered for inclusion in sarge unless we have tested it for > a decent time in unstable, so even adding amd64 to sid today won't make > it an sarge architecture, except if we want to delay sarge even more.) > > > > * too much bandwith needed to update all mirrors. > > > > do all mirrors sync with ftp-master? would it help to establish > > a mirror hierarchy where only a few selected mirrors are allowed > > to connect to our master server? > > This is already the case. But there are places where our _mirrors_ > bandwith is too expansive to make the daily pushes even larger.
Sorry, but I still don't understand it: You could continue to offer the complete archive as it is today, and it shouldn't be a big amount of work to offer one or more partial archives (e.g. only stable or only i386) from different locations - and a mirror with bandwith problems could simply switch to using a partial archive. This wouldn't be as complicated as the SCC proposal, would have exactly zero impact on release management and should be implemantable within a few days. Considering that this might make it possible to ship amd64 with sarge which would have a positive effect on the reputation of Debian, could you please explain which technical problems I do oversee when thinking that the technical problems of such a solution were small? If such a solution would e.g. take two weeks and would have been implemented at the day of the SCC announcement, it was running for one month today... Could someone please enlighten me? > Cheers, > Andi cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]