* Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050429 15:40]: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of > > binary arm packages being pushed each day, as the packages between > > testing and unstable are shared (and only few packages go in via t-p-u). > > So, the only win is that packages are faster removed - but as unstable > > and testing are quite in sync, even this is not so much difference. > > Adding a new arch however adds a lot of new binary packages to be pushed > > each day > > well, those should be about as much as are saved by removing another > arch -- once the new architecture is uptodate in testing and unstable.
Actually, that is exactly what is planned post-sarge (well, not removing an arch, but splitting the archive so that mirrors are only required to carry some of our current architectures). There is a simple reason why we don't do it now: We prefer to use the ftp-masters time for resolving issues we need to release sarge. (And, BTW, of course an architecture won't be considered for inclusion in sarge unless we have tested it for a decent time in unstable, so even adding amd64 to sid today won't make it an sarge architecture, except if we want to delay sarge even more.) > * too much bandwith needed to update all mirrors. > > do all mirrors sync with ftp-master? would it help to establish > a mirror hierarchy where only a few selected mirrors are allowed > to connect to our master server? This is already the case. But there are places where our _mirrors_ bandwith is too expansive to make the daily pushes even larger. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]