On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Warwick HARVEY wrote: > I thought we came up with a good solution to all this shortly after > the 1.0 debacle? (Bruce seems to have alluded to this in another part > of his message.) That was to give each release a code name which > would be used for the directory name, and then "stable", "unstable", > "1.1", etc. would all be symbolic links to the relevant code name, > with the version number links only put in *after* they were officially > released. That way, no directories are renamed, and unreleased > version numbers don't exist.
Yep, that makes sense. Quite a workable solution. Thanks for explaining it, i didn't know what Bruce was referring to when he mentioned code names. > I'm sure we can arrange for advance notice on this list of the change, > so anyone who wants to can disable their mirror just before it, move > things by hand, re-enable after it, and not have to endure the flood. > (I believe this has been done before.) yeah, this is what i'm hoping to do when the time comes. > > Hey, here's another idea: > > > > Set up a second anonymous ftp account, say "deb-anon". Make debian-1.1/ > > unreadable by "anonymous" but readable by "deb-anon". Those who bother > > [...deleted...] > > Then there'll be a bunch of mirrors who want to mirror the unstable > stuff, and they'll all need the same set up or we still wouldn't avoid > the problem. mirror preserves ownership & permissions, doesn't it? Craig
