Getting updated (was: Re: [plug] Woody on 7 CDs!? Why?)

[Trevor Phillips]

On Wednesday 24 July 2002 12:20, Russell Steicke wrote:
> 
> You can fudge around this by doing..
>
>   (apt-get update || apt-get update || apt-get update ) \
>     && ( apt-get upgrade -udy || apt-get upgrade -udy )
>
> Or something similar in a shell loop.

Yeah, I know. I haven't played with it much, but I may have to do the above, 
as well as increase my time-outs. I'll also give rsync a burl, see if it's 
any better...

BTW: Am I the only one annoyed at how long (especially over modem) it takes to 
do an "apt-get update" these days? Especially if you have Sid lines (even if 
you don't use them most of the time), where things change daily, and it 
downloads the whooooole packages list all over again, which, even compressed, 
isn't that small any more.

Does anyone know of any plans to better support differential package list 
updates? Something along the lines of apt-get telling the server what 
ID/point it was up to, and only getting down what's changed. Sure, it'd 
probably mean a new protocol (or at least, a HTTP request with a GET 
parameter served by a CGI or similar), but it'd save SOOO much download time 
(and traffic). Yes, rsync should do this to a degree - especially if it works 
on uncompressed package files...

-- 
. Trevor Phillips             -           http://jurai.murdoch.edu.au/ . 
: Web Technical Administrator     -          T.Phillips at murdoch.edu.au : 
| IT Services                        -              Murdoch University | 
 >--------------------------------------------------------------------<
| On nights such as this, evil deeds are done. And good deeds, of     /
| course. But mostly evil, on the whole.                             /
 \      -- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)                          /