On Mar 29, 2018, at 20:53, Michael wrote: > On 2018-03-29, at 7:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:24, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> >>>> I know it is nice to see all packages for a port in one place and it is >>>> easier to check what has already been built. But hopefully we would have >>>> this information on individual port index pages soon. >>> >>> Indeed. I don't know about the proper way to do the transition, but >>> maybe we could implement something in version 2.5.0? That would also >>> greatly simplify adding the libc++ packages and I'm pretty sure that >>> we can set something up to have a clear overview about the build >>> process until the switch to 2.5.0. >>> >>> Users who don't upgrade to 2.5.0 immediately would have to build from >>> source for a while, but that's just about the biggest "problem" I can >>> think of. >> >> Any reorganization of the packages server's directory structure would >> probably result in all mirrors having to refetch all packages. That would be >> a huge waste of bandwidth and time and I think we should avoid imposing that >> on our mirroring partners. > > If I understand what you're saying, how does this sound? > > For 2.5.0: add the ability to add a redirect, which effectively allows a > package to be moved. Do not make any attempt to use this until the mirrors > have had a chance to update. > > Once all the mirrors have updated to software that supports redirects, then > release version 2.6.0, and start implementing redirects. Now you can start to > reorganize the directory tree, and instead of re-downloading, the mirrors > will just move the packages around to match the redirect.
The mirrors don't run MacPorts; they use rsync.
