On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:31:15PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> /ubuntu/dists/raring-security/main/source
>
> [ ] Release 24-Jul-2013 01:16 106
> [ ] Sources.bz2 24-Jul-2013 01:16 32K
> [ ] Sources.gz 24-Jul-2013 01:16 38K
>
> For end users, how much is really
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:59:41PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Has any work been done on concurrent requests? That would likely be
> pretty broadly useful, not just for cloud images.
AIUI, apt-get already supports concurrent requests, but only to
diffferent servers at once. From my understand
On 24 July 2013 11:08, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:00:40 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> Perhaps we have two issues here:
>
>> The 20% additional download due to sources [1] would help both issues,
>> but perhaps of bigger impact, trusting the country-level mirror fo
Or 90/110K per day per computer for Precise. I guess what was getting
me is the additional 6-7MB during install or first update:
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/precise/universe/source/ 4.8M/5.9M
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/precise/main/source/ 912K/1.1M
On 24 July 2013 09:31, S
Perhaps we have two issues here:
- the download during installs or first index update is 6-7MB extra,
which makes a real difference when installing lots of computers
- downloads from security.ubuntu.com being slow (eg 1-5KB/s) as it's >500ms away
The 20% additional download due to sources [1] wou
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 03:46:10 AM Robie Basak wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:31:15PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Before we run off and expend a lot more effort on this, I'd like to
> > see something other than handwaving that this is really is a
> > significant issue.
>
> [size co
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:31:15PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Before we run off and expend a lot more effort on this, I'd like to
> see something other than handwaving that this is really is a
> significant issue.
[size comparisions snipped]
My concern is latency, not size. How many round tr
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 09:19:36 PM Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 07/23/2013 12:02 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 06:59:43 AM Robie Basak wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> I think most developers would believe the current situ
On 07/23/2013 12:02 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 06:59:43 AM Robie Basak wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> I think most developers would believe the current situation is
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>>> By default users
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:00:40 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Perhaps we have two issues here:
> The 20% additional download due to sources [1] would help both issues,
> but perhaps of bigger impact, trusting the country-level mirror for
> the security updates?
...
You aren't. Security up
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 08:21:40 AM Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > Assuming add-apt-repository was installed by default, it's close. I think
> > something like this might be reasonable (imagine some policykit or
> > whatever it is called now
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Assuming add-apt-repository was installed by default, it's close. I think
> something like this might be reasonable (imagine some policykit or whatever it
> is called now magic here):
>
> $ sudo apt-get source hello
> Reading package lists
On 23.07.2013 12:09, Robie Basak wrote:
> It is provided by software-properties-common in more recent releases,
> and is seeded on server now. See bug 439566.
That is good to know. Given that my server installs are based on LTS
releases I only checked the latest LTS.
> All this is true, but you
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 08:12:16 AM Robie Basak wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:02:02AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > So those are a couple of examples of what I think is definitely not what
> > we
> > want. I'm open to discussion about alternate ways to preserve easy access
> > to the s
On 23 July 2013 16:24, Andreas Moog wrote:
> On 23.07.2013 09:12, Robie Basak wrote:
> [...]
>> E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list
>> E: Type "add-apt-repository sources" to do this automatically for you.
>> $ sudo add-apt-repository sources
>> deb-src lines have been added to
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:24:31AM +0200, Andreas Moog wrote:
> andreas@j3515:~$ sudo add-apt-repository
> The program 'add-apt-repository' is currently not installed. You can
> install it by typing:
> sudo apt-get install python-software-properties
> andreas@j3515:~$
>
> add-apt-repository is no
Hi Daniel (2013.07.23_08:13:47_+0200)
> For the other 99% of users, where practicality is more important than
> immediate access to source, we end up wasting ~10% of Canonical and
> our mirror's bandwidth on the source updates.
Can you back that up with evidence? As I (and a few other people) have
On 23.07.2013 09:12, Robie Basak wrote:
[...]
> E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list
> E: Type "add-apt-repository sources" to do this automatically for you.
> $ sudo add-apt-repository sources
> deb-src lines have been added to your sources.list.
> Now type "apt-get update", and
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:02:02AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> So those are a couple of examples of what I think is definitely not what we
> want. I'm open to discussion about alternate ways to preserve easy access to
> the source.
How about:
$ sudo apt-get source hello
Reading package lis
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think most developers would believe the current situation is appropriate.
I disagree.
> By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and for a
> free software distribution, that is the ethically correct
(pardon the top-posting)
I think the slight reduction in ethics (relevant mainly to developers)
is a good trade to help deployability in the real world. We'll leave
sources enabled by default for development releases.
For the other 99% of users, where practicality is more important than
immediate
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 06:59:43 AM Robie Basak wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I think most developers would believe the current situation is
> > appropriate.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > By default users have the same access to source and binary packages
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:02:00 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> By large, developers are uninterested in this, but it is important for
> users and where we use Ubuntu.
>
> Anyone care to comment on how we can progress this?
I think most developers would believe the current situation is appropriat
By large, developers are uninterested in this, but it is important for
users and where we use Ubuntu.
Anyone care to comment on how we can progress this?
On 15 July 2013 13:32, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> From earlier feedback, there were no overriding reasons why package
> sources should be enabl
24 matches
Mail list logo
