apt-p2p: A Peer-to-Peer Distribution System for Software Package Releases and Updates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Internet has become a cost-effective vehicle for software development and release, particular in the free software community. Given the free nature of this software, there are often a number of users motivated by altruism to help out with the distribution, so as to promote the healthy development of this voluntary society. It is thus naturally expected that a peer-to- peer distribution can be implemented, which will scale well with large user bases, and can easily explore the network resources made available by the volunteers. Unfortunately, this application scenario has many unique characteristics, which make a straightforward adoption of existing peer-to-peer systems for file sharing (such as BitTorrent) suboptimal. In particular, a software release often consists of a large number of packages, which are difficult to distribute individually, but the archive is too large to be distributed in its entirety. The packages are also being constantly updated by the loosely-managed developers, and the interest in a particular version of a package can be very limited depending on the computer platforms and operating systems used. In this paper, we propose a novel peer-to-peer assisted distribution system design that addresses the above challenges. It enhances the existing distribution systems by providing compatible and yet more efficient downloading and updating services for software packages. Our design leads to apt-p2p, a practical implementation that extends the popular apt distributor. apt-p2p has been used in conjunction with Debian-based distribution of Linux software packages and is also available in the latest release of Ubuntu. We have addressed the key design issues in apt-p2p, including indexing table customization, response time reduction, and multi-value extension. They together ensure that the altruistic users' resources are effectively utilized and thus significantly reduces the currently large bandwidth requirements of hosting the software, as confirmed by our existing real user statistics gathered over the Internet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it