On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:07:55PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Well, then that sadly doesn't actually fix the bug that I had reported.
> > We (still) don't want Debian mirrors in the wild without the trace
> > files, ever, because then our own checking scripts have a hard time
> > with figuring out where the mirror is updated from, as do any non-local
> > users, obviously.
> >
> > It also (continues to) set a bad precedent to have something called
> > 'debmirror' conflict with Debian's official mirror documentation. :)
>
> I'm not going to give any priority to this as AFAIK debmirror has never been
> intended for creating official mirrors, only local or unofficial ones. After
> all, it's core functionality is to flexibly create *partial* mirrors.
>
> IMO the current functionality is sufficient for that purpose and I don't
> want to make use of debmirror impossible for users who, for whatever
> reason, cannot use rsync.
>
> People who do make their mirror publicly available should of course use
> the now available option, if at all possible.
That's acceptable in this particular situation. I really should have filed a
more generic bug report about the general issue - all this time we have been
shipping an package that has a namespace-polluting name and tends to make
life harder for our mirror hierarchy, by using inefficient protocols and
effectively discouraging publishing new mirrors.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
