On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the > assumption that we need to have multiple physical servers to support > the non-free/main split. This doesn't make sense to me: all we really
That's not very true, only the last paragraph contains this point. Probably means you disagree with the others <shrug> > need are multiple DNS names for the two services. [If we're not going > to guarantee different IP addresses for the distinct names then we need > to guarantee that the paths are different, but That's Not A Big Deal.] The way the proposal has been phrased an discussed requires at a minimum different IPs so that users canot be confused by seening non-free stuff on the main server. (that 'It is too Specific' point..) Getting another IP might be doable but we still wouldn't have a machine to use for the new 'master.non-free' which some people want. > We *should* have primary servers where the ip addresses are different, > but that wouldn't have to happen right away (at least, not the way I > understand the issue). Maybe I should add that explicitly to the text then because it IS what will happen. Jason
