Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-04 Thread Anthony Towns
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote: On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:59, Glenn McGrath wrote: If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control [...] You could use cvsup rather than cvs to reduce load further. But ideally you'd just use rsync and make the

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread Corrin Lakeland
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:59, Glenn McGrath wrote: If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control (e.g. cvs), bandwidth requirments would be minimised as cvs automatically takes care of diff's and patching, and i assume the CPU load

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread David Weinehall
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:59, Glenn McGrath wrote: If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control (e.g. cvs), bandwidth requirments would be minimised as cvs

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread Miles Bader
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fetching Packages.gz over modem is a pain in the arse. Having it only rsync the changes would be so nice. Exactly. I use `testing' via a slow modem link, and I'd like to update frequently, to keep individual updates as small as possible (testing does

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread Cameron Patrick
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:04:16AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: | However, given the packages.gz file is much smaller than the total | files being downloaded, is it really worth it? | | When the mirrors sync, yes, when the average user runs | | # apt-get update | # apt-get -u upgrade | |

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread Miles Bader
Cameron Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suspect that for anyone running unstable the Packages.gz and Sources.gz files will be the tip of the iceberg. For anyone running stable, the Packages.gz files rarely change and so apt-get update will not normally bother to download them again. Try

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread aradorlinux
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:04:16 +0200 David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Fetching Packages.gz over modem is a pain in the arse. Having it only rsync the changes would be so nice. I must say that apt-get update using sid is a hell with my 56 k ;( Most of the Packages file doesn't

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread Nicolas Kratz
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:04:16AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: No. Fetching Packages.gz over modem is a pain in the arse. Having it only rsync the changes would be so nice. Try apt-rsync. http://home.worldonline.cz/~cz210552/ HTH, Nick --

Re: Packages file under version control

2003-06-03 Thread Brian May
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:11:23PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: Anything to back this up? I just did and apt-get update/dist-upgrade and it wants to download 86MB of stuff. Considering that I last dist-upgraded my (sid) machine just a few days ago, I suspect that for anyone running unstable

Packages file under version control

2003-06-02 Thread Glenn McGrath
If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control (e.g. cvs), bandwidth requirments would be minimised as cvs automatically takes care of diff's and patching, and i assume the CPU load from cvs server is a lot better than rsync. Glenn