On 2025-02-01 14:49:26, Ralph Ronnquist via Dng wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 11:33:48AM +1000, onefang wrote:
> > On 2025-02-01 11:34:59, Ralph Ronnquist via Dng wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 09:27:34AM +1000, onefang wrote:
> > > > On 2025-01-31 17:12:10, golinux via Dng wrote:
> > > > > On 2025-01-31 16:41, onefang wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would tend to think that the 'devuan-dev' mailing list would be more
> > > > > > > appropriate for this discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except I'm asking ALL users if anyone is actually using these.
> > > > >
> > > > > Knowing the number of Devuan users who use the various DL options is
> > > > > impossible to calculate. Reducing the number of options could lose (and piss
> > > > > off) some present and potential users. You have been around long enough to
> > > > > understand this so I don't know why you are even asking the question . . .
> > > >
> > > > Did you not read the part where I mentioned that apt DOES NOT SUPPORT
> > > > RSYNC!!! So there's no reducing options going on. FTP is deprecated by
> > > > the apt authors, and currently disabled by default, so it's not me
> > > > removing these options.
> > > >
> > > > ONCE MORE I'M ASKING TO SEE IF ANYONE WILL BE PISSED OFF, rather than
> > > > just yanking the rug and ignoring pissed off people.
> > > >
> > > > I'm starting to get pissed off by peaple going off tangent. lol
> > >
> > > The purpose of declaring supported access protocols in the mirrors.txt
> > > file is just that; to declare which manners of access the servers
> > > offer. The use by apt is only one use of them.
> >
> > So why is rsync included, when apt doesn't support rsync? Why not
> > include the obscure protocols that apt does support? There are
> > apt-transport packages for Tor, AWS S3, plus whatever in-toto and
> > Spacewalk are. FTP is supported natively by apt, but disabled by
> > default, and you get a message telling you that using HTTP or HTTPS is
> > better. There is no apt-transport-rsync and no built in support.
> >
> > Maybe ancient Devuan's have FTP enabled in apt by default, dunno didn't
> > check. Don't think we ever had a Devuan installer that setup
> > sources.list with anything other than HTTP or HTTPS?
> >
> > The use of non apt things IS what I'm looking for. So far the only
> > relevant thing mentioned is rsyncing a local package mirror, which makes
> > sense, but not a common use case. A couple of other package mirrors
> > rsync off sledjhamr, but they should be rsyncing off pkgmaster like the
> > other mirrors. Note that local package mirrors can't rsync from
> > pkgmaster, only our official mirrors can do that.
> >
> > The advantages of rsync do not apply to downloading a single ISO, or apt
> > updating / installing packages. You're gonna download the entire file
> > anyway, if you don't that's coz you already had it. It would help if we
> > could apply it to the contents of updated packages and point release
> > ISOs, but that's not how it works. Might help with the metadata files
> > during an apt update. Wont help if the only change in an updated 30 MB
> > package is a tiny part of a 2KB file, you're gonna download that entire
> > 30 MB package anyway.
> >
> > So apart from those package mirrors that should be using pkgmaster, the
> > only other "users" of my rsync server seem to be good / bad security
> > scanners and Yandex, which recently started hitting it badly. Dunno if
> > Yandex is now indexing rsync servers, or if it REALLY wants to update
> > it's own half dozen mirrors by having them ALL rsync from me at the same
> > time.
>
> I think the point is that apt is *not the only way* of accessing
> package repositories. There are other ways. For example one may use
> ftp, if that is supported by the server. One may use rsync, if that is
> supported by the server. Thus, servers declare the access protocols
> they support.
>
> And it may wll be useful with sub-mirrors that mirror mirrors. I don't
> think we have ever before talked against, but apparently it's
> something you don't like. Or I may misunderstand your viewpoint.

It's not that I don't like it, just trying to get some level of sanity here.

> It's unclear to me what you think is gained by removing that
> information from mirrors.txt.

Which is an entirely separate issue from me turning off my FTP and rsync
servers.

As for what's listed on mirrors.txt, why not list all the obscure access
methods? What is so special about FTP and rsync? If we are gonna list
access methods not supporetd by apt in case someone wants to do something
else, then let's list the ones that are suppoorted by apt as well. Now
THAT sounds sane to me.

--
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.