Official package mirror usage

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Mon Sep 6 21:08:20 PDT 2004

mirror-maintainer at wrote:

> 1.  The upshot is that I'd love to help, especially if it makes things
> easier for users.  However, the FTP RR infrastructure is a little thin
> right now, with only two servers.  Perhaps OSUOSL may be interested in
> offering LFS packages via their usual as well?  Or maybe
> ask ibiblio?

I agree, I wasn't aware that there were only two servers providing this 
service. At this point it would be wise to not push any additional 
"automated" load onto them.

> 2.  I don't expect this to be an issue, but it's good to have an idea.  Is
> there any indication how much disk space the ALFS packages consume,
> and how traffic they use in aggregate?

There are no "ALFS packages" per se, it's just the standard LFS 
stable/testing/unstable packages. My proposal was to change the ALFS 
"wget script" to just point to the ftp mirrors for _all_ of the 
packages, rather than the original package locations (or their own 
mirrors) for each package. It's not a big deal, but occasionally the 
script has to be changed due to a package mirror (especially GNU 
mirrors) becoming unavailable, and that's a problem when we have nALFS 
tarballs that include the old script.

Also, I would like to modify the official LFS profile at some point to 
include automatic downloading of package sources, and to do that will 
realistically require that the package sources all be available from a 
single location. As Jeremy already pointed out, many of us already do 
this internally, and will keep doing so for own needs regardless of what 
happens with the official mirrors.

More information about the website mailing list