Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Less dinstall FTW?"):
> as I have seen some confusion what this change means in practice and
> most answers ignored the second part of the proposal, here are some more
> explanations:Thank you for the clear explanation. I'm much less confused. > The latter is probably the main reason people are interested in > dinstall: uploaded packages get accessible. If your work is blocked, but > a fix was recently uploaded, you currently have to either wait for > dinstall and your mirror to be pushed or search and download the file in > question by hand on incoming.d.o (and find the signature in the mail > archive). This is one of the reasons some people want to have dinstall > run more often. Right. > The more interesting part of the proposal has so far been ignored by > most replies: we would make the incoming.d.o archive public. This would > mean all new uploads are available after ~15 minutes via APT, a lot > faster than the current interval between dinstall runs. Right. My concern in this conversation is to maximise the automatically-findable availability of packages which the dak database considers to be published. I like to look at the archive as a VCS. Looking at it like that, for a long time it has been something of a deficiency that it can be difficult to find out what version of something is in the archive, and obtain that version. In particular, in the context of the current discussion, I would like to be able to do "dak ls" and then be able to somehow actually retrieve the corresponding files - automatically. (Given that our filenames are not reused, it is fine to try a mirror first, but I want to be able to fall back to something close to the source.) It sounds like these proposals will make this easier. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21023.28733.122910.624...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
