Hi Markus,
Do they need to install -0ubuntu2 and THEN -0ubuntu3?
I don't know how Fedora does, but you always have the fallback option
to download the full package. The server always has to provide full
packages to allow new installations.
It would be logical for a from-version
Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
I would like to know how they handle situations where the person hasn't
updated in 3 weeks and the package has been updated in the meantime.
Say, for example:
-0ubuntu1 is currently installed
-0ubuntu3 is available to install
Do they need to install -0ubuntu2 and
If you just want to disable certain large packages, could you do some
sort of pinning arrangement on them? You should be able to configure
apt so that it (for example) prefers an older version of OOo to an
updated one, but likes a security fix better still. See
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 01.02.2009 um 21:43 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan:
I would like to know how they handle situations where the person
hasn't
updated in 3 weeks and the package has been updated in the meantime.
Say, for example:
-0ubuntu1 is currently installed
Am 31.01.2009 um 15:09 schrieb Davyd McColl:
I don't appreciate a 78mb download every other day because one
config item in the kernel config has been changed or tweaked.
I think what you are really asking for are incremental packages.
Additional to full packages, each server would supply a
Isn't Fedora working on something like this right now?? Only downloading
the pieces that were updated? If yes, It would help to look at what they
are doing.
Markus Hitter wrote:
Am 31.01.2009 um 15:09 schrieb Davyd McColl:
I don't appreciate a 78mb download every other day because one
On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 13:38 -0600, nergar wrote:
Isn't Fedora working on something like this right now?? Only downloading
the pieces that were updated? If yes, It would help to look at what they
are doing.
I would like to know how they handle situations where the person hasn't
updated in 3
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to know how they handle situations where the person hasn't
updated in 3 weeks and the package has been updated in the meantime.
Dunno if they do it like this, but I could imagine a system where the
updates
On Saturday 31 January 2009 13:16:25 Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
If you want to avoid those sorts of updates and only get the security
ones,
you can disable the updates repository and just use security. That'd
result in quite a lot of the updates being eliminated. There are also
changelogs
It sounds like a good idea, but I don't know how feasible it would be. I
know at one point there was also work going on with debdiffs, but I haven't
heard anything on that in a long time.
At the very least, this is definitely an area that needs to be looked at,
maybe at the Jaunty+1 UDS?
Evan
--
Another possibility that I just recalled was that of using lzma compression
instead of gzip for the packages. Again, it was discussed a while ago and I
haven't heard anything since. Did anything ever come of that?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify
On Saturday 31 January 2009 09:09:04 Davyd McColl wrote:
Here it is: whilst I totally appreciate all the hard work that goes into
patching and maintaining the current release version of large packages (like
the kernel, openoffice.org, or even just warsow, which has a large data
component), I
12 matches
Mail list logo
