On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 08:15:46AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > why not just have an '--ignore-missing-arch' option? > > What if the DAK screws up and forgets to create a Packages file for > some arch one day? Yes, that happened before. a "just have an > '--ignore-missing-arch'" would suddenly remove all the previously > mirrord debs.
depends on how you code it. --ignore-missing-arch could mean that debmirror completely ignores even the presence of that arch in the local archive. personally, i'd assume that that's what --ignore means - actually ignore it, not delete it because the remote mirror doesn't have it. that could be the default, and if you felt that there was a need to override the default in some cases, have a '--delete-missing-arch' option as well. > There is always a problem to detect when a mirror is broken and when > it is actualy setup bad. Given that an archive without Release file is > quite unusable with the secure apt in etch anyway I think it is > acceptable for debmirror to insist on them for full functionality too. > > Do you have any case where those files are actualy missing on purpose? > Hopefully nobody does that anymore. stable amd64 woody amd64 anything pre-etch amd64 how about just a quick hack fix to ignore missing amd64 for stable (and woody too, i suppose), then? that's the most common cause for complaint with this particular bug - i only found it because i wanted to add 'stable' to my mirror at work and found that i can't if i am mirroring amd64 (which i am, because my servers at work are amd64 boxes). the problem will mostly go away, at least for debian's archive, when etch is released. very few people will still be mirroring sarge or woody at that point. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BOFH excuse #67: descramble code needed from software company -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
