Hi Maciej, Am 30.12.2012 um 19:53 schrieb Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński <[email protected]>: > 2012/12/29 Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]>: >>> Could we do the >>> same somewhere on the buildfarm but not on the master mirror? Then we >>> would have an official archive for those that need it but since it >>> wouldn't be used that much it would be unnecessary to mirror it, we >>> would just link to it from our mirror page. >> >> This is already the case: allpkgs/ is not included in the main rsync >> offering, just in opencsw-full: >> >>> dam@login [login]:/home/dam > rsync rsync://mirror.opencsw.org >>> csw Legacy name, please switch to the identical 'opencsw' >>> opencsw CSW Primary Mirror, use this if you are mirroring OpenCSW >>> (the archive "allpkgs" is now in 'opencsw-full') >>> opencsw-full CSW Primary Mirror, contains full archive of old packages >>> opencsw-future The proposed future layout of the OpenCSW Primary, layout >>> may change without notice at any time >> >> >> This is done by using the exclude-directive in rsync.conf for "csw" and >> "opencsw": >> exclude = allpkgs HEADER.txt >> >> Having all packages on the primary mirror is also good IMHO. This way >> each downstream-site can easily select what to offer. > > I'm not sure what you mean by downstream-sites selecting what to > offer.
Official sites mirroring our packages. > The primary mirror has a set of files, and that's it. Not quite. There are all files in the filesystem avaialable for download. However, if you rsync "opencsw" you won't get allpkgs/, so almost all of the official mirror sites don't mirror allpkgs/. > People > can make snapshots from different points in time, is that what you > mean? No, that is different. We don't do this ATM, but archive catalog-files, so if someone has a specific problem we can regenerate everything from that catalog and allpkgs/ and this is another reason why I think having allpkgs is a Good Thing™. > Generally, the oldpkgs archive that people often wanted were there > because of the rolling release of the 'current' catalog. At the time, > the thinking was that first we scrutinize the hell of the package, and > once we prove to ourselves it's a good package, we push it forward > with no good way of rolling it back. If we pushed something bad, we > had nothing to say to people other than “scavenge oldpkgs”. These > days, we have the testing release; we know that we will every now and > then push something bad to unstable, and that people can still using > the testing release, and we don't have to panic when there's something > broken in unstable. The assumption there is of course, that majority > of problems will be caught when in unstable. Right. > We also keep the old named releases, for instance the dublin release, > which is a consistent set of packages and their dependencies. Yes. > The 'allpkgs' directory does contain a history of packages, but it > doesn't contain all transient (and often broken) 19 different versions > of MySQL that happened to be in unstable for 2 days, but only the 3 or > 4 versions that are actually used somewhere in our catalogs. If it would be only for this we wouldn't need allpkgs at all. > I thought > that was good enough. If you disagree, I will put the 24GB of junk > back in allpkgs; but I remain unconvinced that they are actually > useful. Hopefully I convinced you with the above arguments. Best regards -- Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
