Debian Planet

Welcome to Debian Planet


Apt-get into it.
Main Menu

  • Home

  • Topics

  • Web Links

  • Your Account

  • Submit News

  • Stats

  • Top 10

  • Debian

    These are important Debian sites one should not be without!

  • Official Debian site

  • Package search

  • Mailing list archives

  • Bug reports

  • Debian on CD

  • Unofficial woody CD ISOs

  • Unofficial APT sources

  • Developers’ Corner

    Other great Debian news sources:

  • Debian Weekly News

  • Kernel Cousin Debian

    (Debian mailing lists digested)
  • Community Groups

    Need help? You’re not alone on this planet.

  • debianHELP

    (User support site)

  • Debian International



  • EsDebian


  • DebianWorld


  • MaximumDebian


  • DebianUsers


  • Debian-BR


  • IRC

    The place to get help on a Debian problem (after reading docs) or to just chat and chill is #debian on

    Many of the Debian Planet staff live there so pop by and say hello.

    Wanna write?

    Got that latest or greatest scoop? Perhaps you have some important news for the Debian community? Submit a news item!

    Or perhaps you’ve written a rather ground breaking insight into some aspect of Debian and you feel compelled to share it with others? Knock up a longer editorial article and send it to the editors.


    DP is sponsored by Xinit Systems and

    Domains paid for and hosted by

    Buy your Debian merchandise at

    Who’s Online

    There are currently, 69 guest(s) and 5 member(s) that are online.

    You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here.


    Re: apt-get update – why not rsync? (Score: 3)
    by caf on Friday, November 30 @ 11:58:59 GMT

    It’d be useful for more than just the Packages file – you could use any older .debs you have cached as a source for matching data in newer versions of the same package. The assumption is that between close versions of a package, there are often large binary similarities. (This of course, is preconditioned on the packaged being built with the ‘rsyncable-gzip’).

    It’s been suggested several times before, and has so far been shot down every time. See the debian-devel list archives. The main reasons seem to be:

    1) the patch that gives gzip an ‘rsyncable’ option isn’t standard – and there doesn’t appear to be a current maintainer of gzip to accept it. (Personally I think this isn’t a problem, because it would just have to be patched into the debian packaged gzip)

    2) The current rsync algorithm puts most of the CPU load onto the server side. This obviously isn’t popular with server administrators.

    3) There are rumoured to be patent issues with the rsync algorithm. (I’ve never seen any evidence of this – just rumour, and I’m inclined to discount it until I see something to convince me otherwise).

    I’ve had some ideas in the direction of number 2 – I think it’s possible to move the CPU load onto the client – and in fact, not even require a new daemon on the server at all. I perceive a lot of built-up hostility to the idea of an rsync-like algorithm in apt-get, so I’m reluctant to argue the point until I at least have some proof-of-concept code to back myself up.

    – caf.

    Your Name: Anonymous [ New User ]



    Allowed HTML:
    <p> <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <tt> <li> <ol> <ul>