On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:57:42AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Btw: I talked about synergy-effects wich would be provide an advantage for > all Servers. If you don`t know what synergy is and if that`s the reason > why you can`t stop bitching you may wanna visit the school again.... > > This topic is as dead as your mind...
hmm. don't get me wrong; i enjoy being able to use my upstream to "give more than i get" with torrents, but i don't believe: $ sudo pkg_add calc-2.11.7 calc-2.11.7|connecting to tracker calc-2.11.7|torrenting.... calc-2.11.7|download complete. seeding. ^Z to background ^C to cancel makes much sense. i reread the OP to make sure i was reading the original question right, and there is mention that it might make more sense for the install sets than for packages, but the original topic is for packages; anyone around since this time last year remembers andrew fresh's post up about the torrents he's seeding, which already have $(uname -r).$(uname -m).packages.torrent; so i imagine the original question has to do primarily with individual packages... a couple of things spring to mind: A) python would have to be in base then. the license seems to my amateur eyes as a BSD license with a tamed-down djb clause #3. perhaps the license excludes it from consideration in base. B) making the ports infrastructure make constructive use of the bittorrent concept might be complicated. some packages are quite small; some packages are quite large. people are going to have to sit around seeding forever for some of them for there to be any difference from just going FTP... do you really think there's a need for an official/integrated torrent mechanism for obsd, given what binaries are actually distrubuted, other than what someone else has already stepped up and provided? > Kind regards, > Sebastian if those are kind regards, i wonder what lively discussion would be borne of the unkind ones... -- jared [ openbsd 3.9-current GENERIC ( mar 15 ) // i386 ]
