On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:16:05 +0200 Corentin Chary <corentin.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:19:11 +0000 > > "Robin H. Johnson" <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:50:49PM +0200, Corentin Chary wrote: > >> > >> $ ./mirrors.py --all --count > >> > >> 297 ?? ?? http://pear.php.net > >> > >> 297 ?? ?? http://pear.php.net/get > >> > >> 88 ?? ?? ??http://pecl.php.net > >> > >> 88 ?? ?? ??http://pecl.php.net/get > >> > > These are already mirror bouncers. If you visit the above, > >> > > you'll get the closest mirror for downloading. > >> > And since there is already ~10 "mirrors" with only one actual > >> > backend, should they go to thirdpartymirrors or not ? If not, > >> > what about this pseudo-mirrors already present in > >> > thirdpartymirrors ? > >> I think we should add the pseudo-mirrors, but explicitly mark them > >> as such in the file, so that they don't get duplicate entries > >> added (eg adding us.pear, de.pear and the pear bouncer is bad. > >> Should have just the bouncer). > > > > It'd be great if we could add some kind of additional mirror > > entries, which would be used by repoman to signal missing mirror:// > > entries but won't be used for downloads. > > Yep, we could put that in it too: > github http://github.com/downloads/ > https://github.com/downloads/ Per spec, portage can choose a random mirror of the list. If we put entries like that, these two will be equally possible as the preferred cloud. URL -- while they redirect one to another. We might decide on some common syntax like preceding all extra entries with '-' but I don't want to be the one deciding here. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
