Re: Downloads

Re: Downloads

[Volker Reichelt]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
 
> On Thu, 15 May 2003, Joe Laffey wrote:
> > I run the mirror mirrors.laffeycomputer.com. I notcie that a good number
> > of people are too ignorant to read the documentation first, and they
> > download ALL the files within the directory of a particular release.
> 
> Ouch.  Thanks for letting us know!
> 
> > I bet you could save yourself and the mirrors (and the users) some
> > bandwidth by placing all of the individual files that are included in the
> > main tarball (e.g. gcc-3.3.tar.gz) into a subfolder called something like
> > "separate_components".
> 
> This is an excellent suggestion, and unless there are strong objection,
> I will move all components and diff files into new subdirectories called
> "components" and "diffs", respectively, tomorrow morning.

BTW, does anybody actually *use* the seperate components?
Given todays bandwidths and hard-disk sizes, I'd guess that everybody
just grabs the full tarball (or the diffs).
Maybe some only grab the core system (to get a system compiler).

Wouldn't it make sense to remove the seperate components (that should
save bandwidth on the mirrors and simplify the release procedure)?

The same holds for the snapshots. It would probably make more sense
to add snapshots for 3.4 instead.

Regards,
Volker

Re: Downloads

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Joe Laffey wrote:
>> This is an excellent suggestion, and unless there are strong objection,
>> I will move all components and diff files into new subdirectories called
>> "components" and "diffs", respectively, tomorrow morning.

As a startet, I have just moved the diffs into a new subdirectory "diffs/"
on gcc.gnu.org, and I will hack an update for the release script to do
that automatically in the future.

> I might suggest notifying the mirror operators if possible, as changing
> the structure could mess up some mirroring scripts (or cause two copies
> of everything, one in the old location and one in the new).

Unfortunately, we don't have a good way of informing mirror operators; at
some point, we probably want to add an announcement-only list where mirror
operators can subscribe to.

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> BTW, does anybody actually *use* the seperate components?

Yes; for example the FreeBSD ports collection has several ports doing so
(though mostly to avoid wasting bandwidth for Ada these days).

Joe, do you have an estimate how many users obtain _only_ components, but
not the full archive?

> The same holds for the snapshots. It would probably make more sense
> to add snapshots for 3.4 instead.

At least until 3.3.1 we should stick snapshots to the branch, but in
general, I have received various requests to provide snapshots for the
active release branch _and_ mainline, and I'll soon make a proposal to
that end.

If we want to save further bandwidth, we could ship snapshots only in .bz2
format, similiar to GDB.

Plus, I have some further plans for our snapshots, mostly based on user
feedback and requests.  Please hold out. :-)

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry"   pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: Downloads

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> If we want to save further bandwidth, we could ship snapshots only in .bz2
> format, similiar to GDB.

Can someone confirm whether the Translation Project robot will handle
.tar.bz2 files?  At present translation.html says to send the URL of a
.tar.gz file to the robot at the start of a release branch, since I
couldn't find it documented what formats the robot expects to find
packaged distributions in.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: Downloads

[Karl Eichwalder]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:

> Can someone confirm whether the Translation Project robot will handle
> .tar.bz2 files?  At present translation.html says to send the URL of a
> .tar.gz file to the robot at the start of a release branch, since I
> couldn't find it documented what formats the robot expects to find
> packaged distributions in.

.bz2 file are perfectly okay for our purposes.  I will have to adjust
the documentation.

-- 
ke@suse.de (work) / keichwa@gmx.net (home):              |
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |      ,__o
Free Translation Project:                                |    _-\_<,
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/             |   (*)/'(*)

Re: Downloads

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> > Can someone confirm whether the Translation Project robot will handle
> > .tar.bz2 files?  At present translation.html says to send the URL of a
> > .tar.gz file to the robot at the start of a release branch, since I
> > couldn't find it documented what formats the robot expects to find
> > packaged distributions in.
> 
> .bz2 file are perfectly okay for our purposes.  I will have to adjust
> the documentation.

So, on the GCC side, http://gcc.gnu.org/translation.html can now be
updated to say that .tar.bz2 files for snapshots should be submitted (and
we may no longer need to generate .gz files for snapshots) - as well as
correcting the inaccurate presumption that the release tarball submission
is an automatic rather than a manual process on the TP side (though the
3.3 release *should* be submitted, and provide the current .pot file
replacing the snapshot one there, and unlike the 3.2.3 release replace the
distribution URL with that for the 3.3 release).  The 3.3 gcc.pot file
corresponds accurately with the 3.3 source code and should be a good basis
for translators to produce up to date translations for the 3.3.1 release.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: Downloads

[Karl Eichwalder]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:

> So, on the GCC side, http://gcc.gnu.org/translation.html can now be
> updated to say that .tar.bz2 files for snapshots should be submitted (and
> we may no longer need to generate .gz files for snapshots)

Yes, sounds good.

> - as well as correcting the inaccurate presumption that the release
> tarball submission is an automatic rather than a manual process on
> the TP side

Yes, currently it's basically a manual process.

> (though the 3.3 release *should* be submitted, and provide the
> current .pot file replacing the snapshot one there, and unlike the
> 3.2.3 release replace the distribution URL with that for the 3.3
> release).  The 3.3 gcc.pot file corresponds accurately with the 3.3
> source code and should be a good basis for translators to produce up
> to date translations for the 3.3.1 release.

Okay, does this mean that I should fetch 3.3 from ftp.gnu.org and
install the .pot file of the 3.3 archive file?  If yes, I'd happily do
it tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience that far!

-- 
                                               Free Translation Project:
Karl Eichwalder             http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/

Re: Downloads

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> Okay, does this mean that I should fetch 3.3 from ftp.gnu.org and
> install the .pot file of the 3.3 archive file?  If yes, I'd happily do
> it tomorrow.

Yes (and each subsequent 3.3 branch release until we submit a 3.4 branch
snapshot).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: Downloads

[Mark Mitchell]

> If we want to save further bandwidth, we could ship snapshots only in .bz2
> format, similiar to GDB.

If the FSF is happy with bz2, we could just stop using gzip altogether.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com

Re: Downloads

[E. Weddington]

On 16 May 2003 at 10:27, Volker Reichelt wrote:

 
> BTW, does anybody actually *use* the seperate components?
> Given todays bandwidths and hard-disk sizes, I'd guess that everybody
> just grabs the full tarball (or the diffs).
> Maybe some only grab the core system (to get a system compiler).

Yes. I build up a binary release of a gcc cross-compiler for the AVR target 
hosted on Windows (MinGW). I only need to grab the core and c++ components. My 
Linux and FreeBSD companions do the same. There's also the possibility in the 
future of adding ada as a front-end as well.
 
> Wouldn't it make sense to remove the seperate components (that should
> save bandwidth on the mirrors and simplify the release procedure)?

I would put my USD0.02 into removing the .gz files and just keeping .bz2, since 
they're smaller files. Can't bzip2 be found on all platforms? I know it's 
available on Windows.

Eric Weddington

Downloads

[Joe Laffey]

Hi,

I run the mirror mirrors.laffeycomputer.com. I notcie that a good number
of people are too ignorant to read the documentation first, and they
download ALL the files within the directory of a particular release.

I bet you could save yourself and the mirrors (and the users) some
bandwidth by placing all of the individual files that are included in the
main tarball (e.g. gcc-3.3.tar.gz) into a subfolder called something like
"separate_components". This way, most people would not download them along
with the full tarball.

Just a thought. Thanks for GCC!

--
Joe Laffey              |  Want to convert subnet masks between different
LAFFEY Computer Imaging |  notations, or figure the number of IPs in a block?
St. Louis, MO           |  Whatmask-It's FREE - www.laffeycomputer.com/wm.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Downloads

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Joe Laffey wrote:
> I run the mirror mirrors.laffeycomputer.com. I notcie that a good number
> of people are too ignorant to read the documentation first, and they
> download ALL the files within the directory of a particular release.

Ouch.  Thanks for letting us know!

> I bet you could save yourself and the mirrors (and the users) some
> bandwidth by placing all of the individual files that are included in the
> main tarball (e.g. gcc-3.3.tar.gz) into a subfolder called something like
> "separate_components".

This is an excellent suggestion, and unless there are strong objection,
I will move all components and diff files into new subdirectories called
"components" and "diffs", respectively, tomorrow morning.

(Mark, what do you think?)

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry"   pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: Downloads

[Joe Laffey]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2003, Joe Laffey wrote:
> > I run the mirror mirrors.laffeycomputer.com. I notcie that a good number
> > of people are too ignorant to read the documentation first, and they
> > download ALL the files within the directory of a particular release.
>
> Ouch.  Thanks for letting us know!

No problem. I was just amazed at how many people were doing this!

>
> > I bet you could save yourself and the mirrors (and the users) some
> > bandwidth by placing all of the individual files that are included in the
> > main tarball (e.g. gcc-3.3.tar.gz) into a subfolder called something like
> > "separate_components".
>
> This is an excellent suggestion, and unless there are strong objection,
> I will move all components and diff files into new subdirectories called
> "components" and "diffs", respectively, tomorrow morning.


I might suggest notifying the mirror operators if possible, as changing
the structure could mess up some mirroring scripts (or cause two copies of
everything, one in the old location and one in the new).

Thanks,

--
Joe Laffey              |  Want to convert subnet masks between different
LAFFEY Computer Imaging |  notations, or figure the number of IPs in a block?
St. Louis, MO           |  Whatmask-It's FREE - www.laffeycomputer.com/wm.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Downloads

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> This is an excellent suggestion, and unless there are strong objection,
> I will move all components and diff files into new subdirectories called
> "components" and "diffs", respectively, tomorrow morning.

If you hide parts of the distribution, then for minor releases (e.g.  
3.3.1) it would perhaps make sense to put the main tarball in a
subdirectory with the main diffs at toplevel instead, to encourage people
to use the diffs if they already have the previous release rather than
downloading the whole new tarball, if the aim is to save bandwidth.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: Downloads

[Joe Laffey]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > This is an excellent suggestion, and unless there are strong objection,
> > I will move all components and diff files into new subdirectories called
> > "components" and "diffs", respectively, tomorrow morning.
>
> If you hide parts of the distribution, then for minor releases (e.g.
> 3.3.1) it would perhaps make sense to put the main tarball in a
> subdirectory with the main diffs at toplevel instead, to encourage people
> to use the diffs if they already have the previous release rather than
> downloading the whole new tarball, if the aim is to save bandwidth.
>

While it is true that this would save the most bandwidth I would guess
that more people prefer to just deal with the full tarball.

The goals was save the bandwidth wasted by downloading EVERYTHING, instead
of just the big tarball. But you do have a point... perhaps a README with
a pointer to directions for applying the diff or soemthing?? *shrug*

I am not trying to make more work for you, though! I was just an idea...

--
Joe Laffey              |  Want to convert subnet masks between different
LAFFEY Computer Imaging |  notations, or figure the number of IPs in a block?
St. Louis, MO           |  Whatmask-It's FREE - www.laffeycomputer.com/wm.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------