> Results of post to debian-devel (so far) attached. Serious concerns hinge > around the question 'why?' (from debian's POV - i.e. not the cover traffic > argument). Any good suggestions not already covered?
They are right that the field should be "X-Freenet:" instead of adding a new offical field. There's no reason the whole Debian project should bend over backwards everytime someone wants to add a new Apt meathod. If in the future Apt-Freenet becomes popular, then we can make it an offical "Freenet:" field (or not). They have a point that most mirrors in the UK (probably the US, too) are cramed full of bandwidth and are not in any danger of being saturated. However, the fact that there are mirrors at all requires a lot of adminstration and coordination. Further, FTP is a absolute mess of a protocol; it's a big security risk all on it's own, plus it takes some major hacking to get it to work through firewalls. I for one would love to see FTP go the way of the Gopher (and to see Gopher make a comeback, but that's another issue). Freenet would do away with the majority of the FTP servers as far as Debian is concered, as well as reducing the hundreds of people needed to adminster the mirrors and bring it down to a few dozen people (though they would need to be more active than the people adminstering the mirrors now). Debian's FTP servers would basicly consit of a primary distribution point, a scattering of fall-back mirrors (in case you can't get a package off Freenet), plus the developer's FTP servers that are already there. So there is a net reduction in the ammount of adminstration needed. _______________________________________________ freenet-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
