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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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 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 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
