[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout

Sun Dec 12 06:36:05 CET 2010

Michael scherer a écrit :
+>
+> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 08:16:33AM -0500, andre999 wrote:
+>
+>>> Not to mention that a ratio of 2 mirrors in the USA out of a total
+>>> of 25 seems rather odd, for something that admins do not care.
+>>
+>> 2 of 25 PLF mirrors in the U.S.
+>
+> Technically, 1, since the other is down ( and should be removed from
+> the list ).
+> So a ratio of 4%.
+
+Unless you are going to analyse what is down for the other distros, you 
+should say 2 ± 1, that is 4 to 12%
+
+>> 16 of 133 Mandriva mirrors in the U.S.
+>
+> A ratio of 12%.
+
+Again, 16 ± 1, or 11 to 13%
+Or essentially the same.
+
+> Same as debian, based 49 mirrors in the US out of 358.
+> ( ie 13% ), based on http://www.debian.org/mirror/list
+
+Ditto.
+
+> Ubuntu has 12 out of 62 for isos, ie 16%.
+> http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/downloadmirrors
+
+So a distro that includes patent-constrained software has a greater 
+proportion in the patent-menaced U.S. ?
+Interesting.
+
+> And for packages, that 51 out of 367, ie 13%
+> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors
+
+Same ballpark as PLF.
+
+> Opensuse has 22 out of  155, aka 14%.
+> ( http://mirrors.opensuse.org/ ).
+
+Ditto
+
+> Fedora has 59 us mirrors out of 259, ie 22%.
+> ( http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/ ).
+>
+> So basically, between Fedora, with a strict policy, and PLF, the
+> difference is 18%.
+
+Or 9%.  Depending on how you want to fudge the figures.
+But maybe it is because they (in policy at least) exclude non-free 
+software ?
+And just how rigorously do they apply a no patent-constrained software 
+policy ?
+
+Haven't I heard somewhere that Fedora (and RedHat) are based in the U.S. 
+?  So wouldn't it be natural to expect that it would have a higher 
+proportion of sites there ?
+
+> And I didn't count other country such as Japan, where patents on software
+> are permitted ( http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Japan ), and where the count of PLF
+> mirrors vs Fedora mirrors is 0 to 8.
+
+0 ± 1 gives 0 to 12%.  Same ballpark.
+Also, recruiting Fedora mirrors could be driven by the commercial 
+interests of RedHat.
+
+> More ever, the fact that this is hosted by some private and rather anonymous
+> company is also a important point. Ie, no .edu or big telco ever contacted
+> PLF to host a mirror, while in France and another country, PLF have both.
+
+Considering that PLF is based on Mandriva, and Mandriva is based in 
+France, wouldn't it be natural to expect PLF to be better represented 
+there ?
+
+>> Also, there are only about 400 packages for i586 in PLF mirrors.
+>> Since most are duplicated, I wonder how many distinct packages there are ?
+>> Somehow doubt that an unlicenced copy of quotes from the Simpsons
+>> (one of the 2 plf packages that I didn't find also in Mandriva main)
+>> is going to be a big attraction.
+>
+> You should look a little bit more closely. For example, libdvdcss2 is plf only.
+> So does various emulator, lame ( and related like darkice ), gstreamer-bad,
+> etc. There is amule, and similar software. More than 2.
+
+Of the twenty or so PLF packages that I found looking through available 
+packages with Mandriva and PLF repositories enabled, only 2 did not also 
+have the same version in Mandriva.  (All Mandriva main, in this sample.) 
+  That is about 10% not in Mandriva.
+So for arguments sake let's say 20% are not in Mandriva.  That makes 
+only about 80 packages only in PLF.
+Impressive, isn't it ?
+
+BTW, gstreamer*plugins-bad is in Mandriva contrib.
+
+I'm not trying to say that PLF does not serve a useful role, 
+particularly for applications which would be better to avoid putting in 
+a distro, for legal or other contraints.
+Offhand, libdvdcss* seems to be a good example.
+
+Just that I don't think that patent considerations should be - except in 
+rare circonstances - a serious enough contraint to consider excluding a 
+package from regular repositories.
+
+> I am sure that using a small shell script, the exact number could be found, if
+> someone want to invest the time.
+
+Actually I was only talking numbers to indicate that the numbers don't 
+prove your point, even if we were to accept that they were a valid means 
+of determining the effect of the patent issue on potential mirror sites.
+There are too many other factors for these numbers to be meaningful.
+For example, large multi-mirror sites may not be very interested in 
+mirroring small sites, with a relatively small demand.
+And sites at universities could be driven by the interests of a few 
+students, who could reasonably be less aware of smaller, more obscure sites.
+(Mandriva was dropped from a local canadian university site last year, 
+probably because the supporting students moved on.)
+
+And don't forget, we don't need many sites worldwide to serve the small 
+number of applications on PLF.
+
+Another 2 cents :)
+
+- André
+