On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 4:37 PM Roberto Ragusa <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/8/19 4:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > If all you want to do is count, then it should be entirely sufficient > > to do it like this: > > > > GET /metalink?repo=fedora-28&arch=x86_64&edition=<blah>&countme=1 HTTP/1.1 > > > > the first time within each one-week window and a simple > > > > GET /metalink?repo=fedora-28&arch=x86_64&edition=<blah> HTTP/1.1 > > > > all other times. > > As an additional improvement, is it really needed to count every machine? > We can subsample a lot, and only let some specific machines to show > up for counting. The difficulty is not the counting. Requiring safe counting and aggregation by the server is a requirement that no server or intermediate server or proxy needs to follow, and would require configuration or filtering control of a server that is outside of client hands. It's not legally or technologically mandated. The great use fo r the data is tracking hosts, metadata that is saleable and likely to help provide a new form of tracking information. Writing this into the dnf behavior is typical, but i't's not beneficial to the clients. It's beneficial to the mirrors, who are likely to sell the data. While it may be that infamous problem, a "Simple Matter Of Programming(tm)" to sanitize the data, there are strong motivations to collect it and sell it, and I'd expect various mirrors to start doing so within moments of the activation of the feature. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
