> The best reason I can think of not to have it there is that we > want to track > older isos so that people can finish their downloads, but we > want all new > downloads to be of the latest iso. The easiest way of > "enforcing" this is > to have only the latest torrent available on the ftp site, and > not using > allow_get.
sounds like a fine reason to me. i've had similar issues on my own tracker where old versions of torrents take longer to die than i'd like but i hate ripping the torrent file out from under people who may have already been connected to that slow dying torrent for a long time already because "they just really want that older version" or are blissfully unaware that an updated version is available. so, i guess i'd support you leaving allow_get disabled in light of your explanation. just my .02, but i commit to seed the latest version or two no matter what you decide. does distributing tsl via bittorrent suggest that it's availability via trustix's own ftp/http/rsync servers is going to go away or have lower bandwidth allocated than they currently do in favor of bt? just wondering because i currently use periodic rsyncs to keep my copies of the iso's up-to-date. i totally understand, however, that splitting your bandwidth among too many distribution methods can become counter-productive. maybe you have such large pipes that that's not really an issue for you but my modest 384Kbit upload cap demands some scrutiny and long term commitment to be very useful, even to a torrent. :-) anyway, i'm excited about trustix at least pursuing bt as an option because i can now give back more in the long run than i take and that's always a good thing. _______________________________________________ tsl-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss
