Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:56:21PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:03:27PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:47:38AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
please, please treat this machine politely. it's my workstation
hey folks,
in the past year or so i've been spending a fair amount of time with
ldap. a while back, the thought occurred to me, why not put
the list of available packages in ldap?
so.. i did that. i found if you put a timestamp with the package on
its way way into the ldap tree, you could
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:47:38AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
please, please treat this machine politely. it's my workstation and
i have no qualms with turning off slapd if it's getting in the
way :)
If you're using OpenLDAP, there is no way that this could ever be fast.
But, your idea is not
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:03:27PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:47:38AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
please, please treat this machine politely. it's my workstation and
i have no qualms with turning off slapd if it's getting in the
way :)
If you're using OpenLDAP,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:56:21PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
now, if the apt method kept a timestamp of the last successful update,
it could send as part of the ldap query filter something like
'(debTimeStamp$lasttime)'. this would make keeping debian up to
date over dialup a much easier
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:56:21PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:03:27PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:47:38AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
please, please treat this machine politely. it's my workstation and
i have no qualms with turning off slapd
On Thursday 02 December 2004 11:47 am, sean finney wrote:
exponentially faster
How, exactly, is this exponentially faster? Is it guaranteed to run in
logarithmic time relative to a normal download?
Sorry to bug you, but I see this phrase being used a lot to mean a whole
lot faster and
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 07:08:17PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 11:47 am, sean finney wrote:
exponentially faster
How, exactly, is this exponentially faster? Is it guaranteed to run in
logarithmic time relative to a normal download?
Sorry to bug you,
8 matches
Mail list logo