Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64), > >But dropping an arch can't improve the capacity of a mirror which >doesn't carry it, and they can always simply not carry it if they want >to. Nor could this possibly slow release.
One of the biggest reasons provided so far against accepting amd64 is "we don't have enough mirror space". Dropping a less-used port for a new commonly-used one seems an easy fix here. Most of the large mirrors currently carry all arches, hence the efforts on billie to make it easier for people to drop the less common arches. >> - scarce resource such as release managers, ftp admins, ... >> if we have to look after arches that are *not really used*. > >All of whom have said that this doesn't actually slow them at all. Well, I'll say differently. I've produced the last several sets of woody point release CD and DVD images. Each arch produced takes time. Reducing the sets produced would make it much easier/faster to get this done. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
