Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:26:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:26:30 -0500 Received: from 217-125-129-224.uc.nombres.ttd.es ([217.125.129.224]:62955 "HELO cocodriloo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:26:29 -0500 From: wind@cocodriloo.com Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:39:12 +0100 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Deprecating .gz format on kernel.org Message-ID: <20030319203912.GA21912@wind.cocodriloo.com> References: <3E78D0DE.307@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E78D0DE.307@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2063 Lines: 64 On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:19:42PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Hello everyone, > > At some point it probably would make sense to start deprecating .gz > format files from kernel.org. > > I am envisioning this as a three-phase changeover: > > a) Get all mirrors to carry .bz2 format. This would affect the > following sites: > > DUTH:format=gz > GARBO:format=gz > HCMC:format=gz > IGLU:format=gz > LINUXAID:format=gz > LLARIAN-NET:format=gz > MINET-FR:format=gz > NC-ORC:format=gz > PCSS:format=gz > PROGRAMVAREVERKSTEDET:format=gz > PUB-FTP-UNIVERSITY-OF-OLDENBURG:format=gz > RN-RNO:format=gz > TASK:format=gz > TELEPAC:format=gz > TENGU-EASYNET-FR:format=gz > UNC-METALAB:format=gz > WEBLAB:format=gz > > b) Once that is done, change the robots to no longer require .gz files; > .bz2 files uploaded would be signed but no .gz file would be generated. > > -> If we get a complete loss of data here, all .gz files would be lost. > > c) At some point, deprecate .gz uploads entirely and remove all the old > .gz files. After that point .gz files uploaded would be treated just > like .Z, .zip or any other "unmanaged" compression format. > > > Now, the questions that come up are: > > i) Does this sound reasonable to everyone? In particular, is there any > loss in losing the "original" compressed files? I don't think phase three is really needed... It sounds reasonable, but if it's mainly due to space consuption, I think it would be nice to code a bzip2-to-gz cgi server so that there is no loss on functionality. This would need CPU power, so perhaps rate-limiting the sending side of the CGI would manage to keep the CPU low on use. > ii) Assuming a yes on the previous question, what time frame would it > make sense for this changeover to happen over? Don't know. Greets anyways, Antonio. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/