On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:59, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control [...]
> You could use cvsup rather than cvs to reduce load further. But ideally
> you'd just use rsync and make the
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:11:23PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> Anything to back this up? I just did and apt-get update/dist-upgrade
> and it wants to download 86MB of stuff. Considering that I last
> dist-upgraded my (sid) machine just a few days ago, I suspect that
> for anyone running unsta
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:04:16AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> No. Fetching Packages.gz over modem is a pain in the arse. Having it
> only rsync the changes would be so nice.
Try apt-rsync.
http://home.worldonline.cz/~cz210552/
HTH,
Nick
--
x--
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:04:16 +0200
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. Fetching Packages.gz over modem is a pain in the arse. Having it
> only rsync the changes would be so nice.
I must say that apt-get update using sid is a hell with my 56 k ;(
Most of the Packages file doesn't ch
Cameron Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suspect that for anyone running unstable the Packages.gz and
> Sources.gz files will be the tip of the iceberg.
>
> For anyone running stable, the Packages.gz files rarely change and so
> apt-get update will not normally bother to download them again
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:04:16AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
| > However, given the packages.gz file is much smaller than the total
| > files being downloaded, is it really worth it?
|
| When the mirrors sync, yes, when the average user runs
|
| # apt-get update
| # apt-get -u upgrade
|
| N
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fetching Packages.gz over modem is a pain in the arse. Having it
> only rsync the changes would be so nice.
Exactly.
I use `testing' via a slow modem link, and I'd like to update frequently,
to keep individual updates as small as possible (testing do
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:59, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control (e.g.
> > cvs), bandwidth requirments would be minimised as cvs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:59, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control (e.g.
> cvs), bandwidth requirments would be minimised as cvs automatically
> takes care of diff's and patching, and i assume the CPU load
If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control (e.g.
cvs), bandwidth requirments would be minimised as cvs automatically
takes care of diff's and patching, and i assume the CPU load from cvs
server is a lot better than rsync.
Glenn
10 matches
Mail list logo
