On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:24:36 +0200 Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Returning to the original question: Does anybody know why the > > uncompressed "Packages" file has disappeared from the "unstable" > > archive? > > Because relevant tools do not / should not use that file since years. > It was announced *long* ago "to be in a few days", so now it happened. > See: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2002/08/msg00008.html I hadn't seen that announcement before, but it still doesn't answer the question of "why". As explained, I wish to use rsync (or preferably, zsync) to update the local packages list; repeatedly downloading the 3.6MB "Packages.gz" file over a 56kb/s link is highly undesirable. I am unable to understand why this ambition is considered to be unreasonable. (At this point, somebody is sure to say "because rsync imposes too much computational load on the network servers." Shouldn't the decision of whether or not to offer rsync access be up to the administrators of each individual mirror? In any case, zsync is the solution to the problem; it would decrease the servers' network load without increasing their compute load.) As far as I can see, updating the packages list with rsync requires either an uncompressed "Packages" file, or a "Packages.gz" file compressed with the "--rsyncable" option. Currently, neither of these exists in the "unstable" archive (and according to that announcement, the "testing" archive will follow). Why is rsync considered to be an undesirable method of accessing the archive? The relative costs of network traffic versus CPU cycles are quite different in many places outside the United States. Why are the needs of sites with poor network connectivity considered unimportant? If there are any "relevant tools" which can update the package lists without downloading the whole file, and without using rsync/zsync, please advise me of such. I'm not committed to any particular solution or piece of software. I just don't understand why the issue of minimizing network traffic is thought to be universally irrelevant. Why shouldn't there be a variety of access methods, to address the varying situations of different client and mirror sites? -- Ian Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]