[mirror-admin] rsync and updates-testing -> updates-released

[J.H.]

Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) wrote on 21 July 2009 18:35:
>  >On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 22:18 -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
>  >> Hurray!
>  >> 
>  >> There's nothing crazy, it's just a much better way to do. It'd get rid
>  >> of the entire mess of hardlinks.
>  >> 
>  >> That's how Debian does it.
>  >> 
>  >> You can also join all the archs together, since the arch is in the
>  >> name of the packages. Those who exclude archs would just have to make
>  >> a small change in their exclude patterns. You could post the
>  >> conversion example on the mirroring instructions page.
>  >> 
>  >> It's even possible to join releases, as Debian does. The advantage is
>  >> that packages that are the same among releases only need to appear
>  >> once in the repository. However this makes it hard to exclude a
>  >> release, it needs detailed knowledge on the repository structure.
>  >> Further, since you say the sign key changes, the same file
>  >> cannot be used for more than one release; thus this level of merging
>  >> doesn't seem to be useful for fedora.
>  >
>  >I got some resistance to using relative dir information in the repodata,
>  >so instead we could still put all the packages for updates in a single
>  >dir, and make hardlinks further into updates vs testing and then create
>  >metadata from the hardlinks.  It'll look like duplicate data, but due to
>  >hardlinks they transfers won't care.
> 
> This removes much of the advantage of the method. Why don't you put
> absolute paths then?

Absolute won't work as not all the mirrors have the data in the exact 
same place.  The data either needs to be relative or hard-linked, if 
relative is getting shot down for whatever reason hard-linked is about 
as good as it's going to get sadly.  That said if the packages are all 
still under the same category it shouldn't be a big deal.  I.E. update 
package live under updates/ etc.

- John 'Warthog9' Hawley

--