On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:09:19AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:51:28AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > > So, what about this wishlist bug? I'd really like to see redirect > > support in apt. > > See http://bugs.debian.org/66434
I am about to implement geographical/topological Loadbalancing for backports.org; DNS is of no help here, since mirrors may have various directories, which will heavily break up apt. Also DNS can only do RR (unless i use a patched named), whilst HTTP:302/301 can intelligently redirect users. When one Mirror goes down, i can instantly take it off the mirrorlist, i do not have to fight with (negative and positive) caching somewhere in the world, either. For DNS another Problem occurs: mirrors need to have the same state or else fetching packages.gz and fetching packages themselves may be out of sync. Intelligent redirection may solve that problem; furthermore when apt caches the redirection of packages.gz it may even use the same mirror for fetching packages, thus possibly solving spontaneous out-of-syncs between mirrors (i.e.: redirection support is only needed for packages.gz, not for the packages themselves). I'd like to test and implement this kind of stuff step for step, so introducing redirection support may already help. However, instead of blindly backporting one patch in the BTS against woody-apt or sid-apt and backporting the whole package i'd like to hear wether the maintainer of the package says that the patch is okay or having the patch in sid and then later backporting the sid/testing version. Ill happily give the concept and code back to the debian project, when iam satisfied with it and it works, so incase you are willing to corporate these patches into the official debian apt package, even the debian project might have benefits of it. -- Rico -mc- Gloeckner | 1024D/61F05B8C | jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ukeer.de | RICO-RIPE | sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] == mv ~/.signature http://www.ukeer.de/signature.html ==
