Re: moving packages.d.o to klecker

2001-02-08 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, James A. Treacy wrote: > Do you have any more information on the pools db? One thing > that really needs to be fixed is how we provide access to > copyright, changelog (both debian and upstream) and file > listings for packages. Perhaps the db could carry this > information.

Re: moving packages.d.o to klecker

2001-02-06 Thread James A. Treacy
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:33:48PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, James A. Treacy wrote: > > > Are there any reasons we shouldn't move packages.d.o over to > > klecker? klecker is a much faster machine and I believe it > > has better bandwidth. > > It seems to me auric wou

Re: moving packages.d.o to klecker

2001-02-06 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, James A. Treacy wrote: > Are there any reasons we shouldn't move packages.d.o over to > klecker? klecker is a much faster machine and I believe it > has better bandwidth. It seems to me auric would be a better choice. Of course the reason to do that is to integrate it with th

moving packages.d.o to klecker

2001-02-06 Thread James A. Treacy
Are there any reasons we shouldn't move packages.d.o over to klecker? klecker is a much faster machine and I believe it has better bandwidth. -- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]