On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:05:47AM +0100, Kjeldgaard Morten wrote:
> Hundreds of machines accessing proxies, and thousands having
> private IPs. Are these numbers something you know or are you just
> throwing them around? Otherwise they can of course be accounted
> for in the total estimate ;-)
I
In article <87d4enbfqd@mocca.josefsson.org> you wrote:
> It would establish an upper bound of well-administrated debian machines,
> I think.
It is a lower bound, since I guess there are more cases where more than one
machine is updated. The case that you download without need or as a
duplicate
In article <200901161206.13302.to...@rastageeks.org> you wrote:
> If the answer is "we don't know", then we don't know. Problem is that you
> don't give any ground to your claims, hence it is far worse to give any
> estimation.
But if you say "we see security donloads from x unique IPs for every
On 16/01/2009, at 23.25, The Fungi wrote:
Same here, though with a caching Debian package proxy instead of an
actual mirror. Nonetheless, s.d.o only sees one download of a given
security update even though it's actually being retrieved by
hundreds of machines.
On 16/01/2009, at 18.27, Johann
Johannes Wiedersich writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Merely the number of distinct IP addresses downloading a particular
>> popular update from security.debian.org at least once would be
>> interesting.
>
> Did you think about thousands of computers having 'private ips' with
> some nat transla
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:18:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's worth bearing in mind that that's a bad assumption, too. We
> use a local security mirror in full knowledge that it's not
> recommended, but we watch it closely and will manually sync if
> need be. We do this because we have syste
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: r-cran-plotrix
Version : 2.5
Upstream Author : Jim Lemon, Ben Bolker, Sander Oom, Eduardo Klein, and others
* URL : http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/plotrix/
* License : GPL (>=2)
Pro
On 16/01/2009, at 11.09, Neil Williams wrote:
How do you map the number of downloads to the number of users or
machines? I have dozens of chroots that I use for multiple reasons.
Now, maybe I should use an apt proxy but most of these are
cross-building chroots so that doesn't help as the proxy w
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> A while back, someone with access to the download logs for
> security.debian.org tried to estimate the number of machines downloading
> security fixes for Debian, based on the assumption that no-one is using
> a mirror for security fixes. I am unable to find those r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Merely the number of distinct IP addresses downloading a particular
> popular update from security.debian.org at least once would be
> interesting.
Did you think about thousands of computers having 'private ips' with
some nat
Joerg Jaspert dijo [Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:08:28PM +0100]:
>
> >> > Umh... This might be the cause, then. Our mirror sync has died three
> >> > days in a row - At 16:37, 15:49 and 17:36 (GMT-6):
> >> From where are you pulling?
> > syncproxy.wna.debian.org
>
> Completly different machine, so not
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:29:18AM +, peter green wrote:
> >IMHO any bugs filed merely due to the presence of the code without the
> > means to trigger the error in normal builds should be wishlist.
> What is particularlly insiduous about this issue is that it could
> easilly be activate
On Friday 16 January 2009 15:42:38 Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:21:29 +
>
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > In that case, I'm probably responsible to thousands of 'installations'
>
> OK, that's an exaggeration but it's certainly hundreds since Etch.
This is true, but I imagine that
Neil Williams writes:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:24:58 +0100
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Neil Williams writes:
>>
>> >> Surely, it must be possible to get an estimate of the number of
>> >> downloads of important packages and security updates? I know these
>> >> downloads also are requeste
* Luciano Bello [Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:37:39 -0200]:
> El Vie 16 Ene 2009, Simon Josefsson escribió:
> > How about numbers for security.debian.org downloads? That will measure
> > the number of well-administrated debian machines (except those
> > well-administrated machines that use other mirrors).
El Vie 16 Ene 2009, Simon Josefsson escribió:
> How about numbers for security.debian.org downloads? That will measure
> the number of well-administrated debian machines (except those
> well-administrated machines that use other mirrors).
well-administrated *etch* machines.
luciano
--
To UNSUB
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:21:29 +
Neil Williams wrote:
> In that case, I'm probably responsible to thousands of 'installations'
OK, that's an exaggeration but it's certainly hundreds since Etch.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
htt
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 05:28:24PM +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> You're welcome to join pkg-voip-maintainers and coordinate with us about
> this :)
I put my efforts so far online at
http://www.dorchain.net/~joerg/code/debian/ and would be pleased
to receive some critics.
Bye,
Joerg
signatur
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:24:58 +0100
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> >> Surely, it must be possible to get an estimate of the number of
> >> downloads of important packages and security updates? I know these
> >> downloads also are requested from mirror sites, but at least
James Vega writes:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:55 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> [2009-01-15 22:37] Michael Goetze
>>>
>>> before wild speculations ensues, you might want to specify what you
>>> really want to know: the percentage of people installing debian systems
>>> who use popcon (always/so
Hi
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:00:04PM +0100, markus schnalke wrote:
>> I know it is not possible to _know_ the real percentage of uses which
>> submit popcon stats of all users. But I want to ask for guesses,
>> because more oppinions do likely improve the result.
>
> [..] is
Neil Williams writes:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:45:12 +0100
> Kjeldgaard Morten wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Thanks. Unless you setup some experimental method, any argument
>> > should reduce
>> > to handwaving or extension of various particular examples..
>>
>> Surely, it must be possible to get an est
>IMHO any bugs filed merely due to the presence of the code without the
> means to trigger the error in normal builds should be wishlist.
What is particularlly insiduous about this issue is that it could
easilly be activated by accident if the maintainer or a NMUer builds and
uploads a new versi
[2009-01-16 12:06] Romain Beauxis
> Le Friday 16 January 2009 11:51:50 markus schnalke, vous avez écrit :
> > [2009-01-16 10:09] Neil Williams
> >
> > > The whole thing is a complete unknown.
> >
> > Of course you're right. But it's the best we have.
> >
> > Instead of leaving it with ``we simply
Le Friday 16 January 2009 11:51:50 markus schnalke, vous avez écrit :
> [2009-01-16 10:09] Neil Williams
>
> > The whole thing is a complete unknown.
>
> Of course you're right. But it's the best we have.
>
> Instead of leaving it with ``we simply don't know'', I prefer to
> estimate on the (unsur
[2009-01-16 10:09] Neil Williams
>
> The whole thing is a complete unknown.
Of course you're right. But it's the best we have.
Instead of leaving it with ``we simply don't know'', I prefer to
estimate on the (unsure) data sources that are available.
For my case, I received valuable comments
On Friday 16 January 2009 11:34:58 Guus Sliepen wrote:
> The license of netlogo (which you should have filled in) is not
> DFSG-compliant. So netlogo can only go into non-free. Also, according to
> the netlogo website, the source code is not available. Do you really want
> to package this?
not real
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:45:12 +0100
Kjeldgaard Morten wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Unless you setup some experimental method, any argument
> > should reduce
> > to handwaving or extension of various particular examples..
>
> Surely, it must be possible to get an estimate of the number of
> download
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 09:21:45PM +0200, Nick Shaforostoff wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>
> --- Please fill out the fields below. ---
> please package it, if the license is ok for you.
>
>Package name: netlogo
> Version:
[Markus Schnalke]
> I know it is not possible to _know_ the real percentage of uses
> which submit popcon stats of all users. But I want to ask for
> guesses, because more oppinions do likely improve the result.
A while back, someone with access to the download logs for
security.debian.org tried
30 matches
Mail list logo
