RFC: cleaning up updates and updates-testing
Charles R. Anderson
cra at WPI.EDU
Sat Sep 11 05:33:17 UTC 2004
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 11:53:15AM -0500, Steven Pritchard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 11:59:21PM -0400, Charles R. Anderson wrote:
> > >From a mirroring perspective, it is much more efficient to have an
> > all-updates directory containing all the real files, and a
> > latest-updates directory containing only symlinks to the newest files
> > in the other directory. That way rsync can sync the symlinks with
> > --delete and you don't have to download the files again when they
> > become obsolete and would otherwise be moved between directories.
>
> But then there wouldn't be anything to --exclude easily (for mirrors
> concerned about space).
Sure there would. Just download the latest-updates directory,
following the symlink targets.
> To avoid the multiple-download problem, when the new update appears, a
> hard link to the old update could be created in the obsolete-updates
> directory. The updates directory copy could then be deleted a week
> later (or whatever). As long as mirrors are using rsync -H and
> mirroring regularly, they'd never need to re-download an update.
Not everyone uses rsync... Symlinks could be supported by ftp
mirroring.
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list