kernel-source - could we patch instead?

[Tom Mitchell]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:12:28PM -0800, Jack Spaar wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:58:41 -0800, Tom Mitchell wrote:
...
> > This includes all the nVidia folks and they seem to have enough
> > trouble as it is.
> 
...
> It would be ideal to allow either path (remember the poor
> dial-up users).  I don't know enough about rpm, yum, etc.
> to know if this is feasible without splitting repositories
> into patch/non-patch.

Dial-up users do count.  If we think of addressing their bandwidth
needs then we all gain.

A patch area in an isolated directory would be easy for yum/up2date.

I suspect the first step is generating patch packages/RPMs.  There are
multiple implementation choices, so this is not as easy to do as
say.

I like giving patch and source oriented folks a head start
(advantage).  In an open source community project 'source folks'
should be leading the way.

Those that demand service should have the option of purchasing
service.  Those that provide service (mirror sites) should get early
access to bits.  If redhat updated 30 "push to hosts" and they in turn
updated 30 more push to hosts then we would have a 900 fold fan out
with only two levels of mirrors.  A small tool to discover one near by
mirror host in the 900 and things might update very quickly.

Mirror management may be the best short term solution to the 
whole issue.

-- 
	T o m  M i t c h e l l 
	mitch48-at-sbcglobal-dot-net