On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:34:15 +0100, "Peter Poeml" <[email protected]> said: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 07:44:38PM +0100, Sebastien WILLEMIJNS wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:46:56 +0100, "Peter Poeml" <[email protected]> said: > > > Thus, metalinks are used for everything, except some > > > security-critical files (which are delivered directly and shall not be > > > sent to mirrors, transparently negotiated). > > > > I hope they are mirrors in all case for this kind of critical stuf ;) > > Even if all files are mirrored, so they are widely available, still > there are situations where you don't want to download them from a > mirror, but rather from a trusted source. As metalinks can include the > hashes that allow verification of the content downloaded from mirror, > that solves it, but on the other hand those files (e.g. signature files) > are often so small that it is simply efficient to deliver them directly > than to create a metalink for them and send the client to further > round-trips to get the tiny file from a mirror. Sometimes the metalink > is even larger than the content in question, so it doesn't save > anything.
ok it is true but use a compressed metalink including a lot of files permit to compress (redudant) mirrors informations and let only (hash) file informations uncompressed ;) by using a metalink you will be sure to have your tiny file (with hash code) ;) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
