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
9 matches
Mail list logo
