Joshua Slive wrote:
4. Even deadelus is not a guarenteed working site at the moment.
I hope that was a Freudian slip. It seems pretty alive this morning.
Greg
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
If the system doesn't manage to blow itself up after a few days, I think
it'd be a good idea to remove the 'from here' link as well, but I'd
prefer to leave a well-marked escape hatch for now. -- justin
Yes. And even more
* Joshua Slive ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 27/10/02 0:54, David Burry wrote:
Right. If we had very reliable mirrors and a good technique for keeping
them that way, I'd be fine with doing an automatic redirect or fancy DNS
tricks. But we don't have that
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill;wstoddard.com]
Sent: 27 October 2002 03:15
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:30 AM +0100 Pier Fumagalli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, as long as it's clear! :-) I'm very dumb, but I know other
people smarter than me who also have the same problem with
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002, Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joshua Slive ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 27/10/02 0:54, David Burry wrote:
Right. If we had very reliable mirrors and a good technique for keeping
them that way, I'd be fine with doing an
--On Saturday, October 26, 2002 9:33 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this system better because:
1. It is perfectly transparent to the users. They know exactly
where they are downloading from and are given options for
alternative locations.
You are missing my point: you
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
You are missing my point: you are creating an extra step that is not
needed. There are plenty of solutions to this problem that do not
require this level of indirection.
For example, you could incorporate the CGI script logic into a shtml
file that has a choice list
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:46 AM -0500 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems to be exactly the same number of steps to me. In the
current page you select the file and then the mirror. With your
idea, you select the mirror and then the file. I don't have any
problem with your
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
No, it isn't. We'd select a random default mirror. (The key is the
closer.cgi functionality would be incorporated into download.html.)
Sure, you can do that. But in that case, you really do need to make
absolutely sure that every mirror works every time. What I
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:33 PM -0500 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, you can do that. But in that case, you really do need to
make absolutely sure that every mirror works every time. What I
have implemented allows the user to gracefully fallback to a
working mirror.
No,
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, David Burry wrote:
[...]
too... hmm.. This is probably getting to be too complex of a suggestion for
anyone to do with volunteer time and resources but still just an idea... ;o)
ftp'ing to ftp://ftp.perl.org/pub/CPAN/ generally sends you to a
nearby CPAN mirror.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
WHOIS parsing and stuff... _WAY_ overkilling... Anyhow this is going waaay
offtopic! :-)
See: http://maxmind.com/geoip/
If someone wants a little project, it shouldn't be too hard to integrate
this into the existing closer.cgi script.
FWIW,
On 27/10/02 19:26, Ask Bjoern Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, David Burry wrote:
ftp://ftp.apache.ddns.develooper.com/pub/apache/dist/ should find an
Apache mirror not on the other side of the world.
We want downloads working with HTTP... Anyhow, how do you do that? Can
On Sun, 2002-10-27 at 09:56, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
+1. great idea, but I think the mirror sites should be mentioned more
than only once.
Agreed, it's one of those things I hate most of SourceForge... I _always_
screw up, copy the link from my browser to my terminal on
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:39 AM -0800 Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to write it up now. I'm also cleaning up closer.cgi
while I'm at it. -- justin
Well, that took *way* longer than I wanted to. Anyway, a rough
sketch of what I'm thinking of is here:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:39 AM -0800 Justin Erenkrantz
wrote:
I'm trying to write it up now. I'm also cleaning up closer.cgi
while I'm at it. -- justin
Well, that took *way* longer than I wanted to. Anyway, a rough sketch
of what I'm thinking of is here:
]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: new download page
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:39 AM -0800 Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to write it up now. I'm also cleaning up closer.cgi
while I'm at it. -- justin
Well, that took *way* longer than I wanted
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:33 PM -0500 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, you can do that. But in that case, you really do need to
make absolutely sure that every mirror works every time. What I
have implemented allows the user to gracefully fallback to a
working
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:24:07PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If the system doesn't manage to blow itself up after a few days, I
think it'd be a good idea to remove the 'from here' link as well, but
I'd prefer to leave a well-marked escape hatch for now. -- justin
I probably missed
Joshua Slive wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.html
I believe this is better than the current circumstances because it is
clearer for the users, and it better enables us to direct people to the
mirrors for the download and the main site for the signatures.
I've never particularly like
Erik Abele wrote:
+1. great idea, but I think the mirror sites should be mentioned more
than only once. Perhaps an extra paragraph like the following would help:
If you look at the actual links, you'll see I'm pretty much forcing
people to download from the mirrors. I provide direct links
Joshua Slive wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
+1. great idea, but I think the mirror sites should be mentioned more
than only once. Perhaps an extra paragraph like the following would help:
If you look at the actual links, you'll see I'm pretty much forcing
people to download from the mirrors. I
Erik Abele wrote:
+1. great idea, but I think the mirror sites should be mentioned more
than only once.
Agreed, it's one of those things I hate most of SourceForge... I _always_
screw up, copy the link from my browser to my terminal on the wget command
line parameter, and end up with a few-kb
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
I'd say that it should be more visible that the link is an HTML rather
than
a TARball... Something like Click here to find out where you can download
HTTPD-2.0.43.tar.gz from...
Ewww... Ugly. I'm open to suggestions on improving the transparency,
but I don't like that
On 27/10/02 0:04, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
I'd say that it should be more visible that the link is an HTML rather
than
a TARball... Something like Click here to find out where you can download
HTTPD-2.0.43.tar.gz from...
Ewww... Ugly. I'm open to
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:30 AM +0100 Pier Fumagalli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, as long as it's clear! :-) I'm very dumb, but I know other
people smarter than me who also have the same problem with
SourceForge... You simply forget! :-)
Well, I agree with Pier. I'm an idiot, too. I
On 27/10/02 0:54, David Burry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that a link on a tar.gz (etc) filename is a lot more intuitive if
it serves an actual tar.gz file... What about a script that randomly
redirects to an actual mirrored file? I realize it may be necessary to
monitor all mirrors to
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Well, I agree with Pier. I'm an idiot, too. I absolutely can't stand
SourceForge's mirroring system (which is essentially what that page is
moving us to). It tells me that I'm downloading a file, but when I try
to download it by hitting the link, I get an HTML file
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 27/10/02 0:54, David Burry wrote:
I agree that a link on a tar.gz (etc) filename is a lot more
intuitive if
it serves an actual tar.gz file... What about a script that randomly
redirects to an actual mirrored file? I realize it may be necessary to
monitor all
--On Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:30 AM +0100 Pier Fumagalli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, as long as it's clear! :-) I'm very dumb, but I know other
people smarter than me who also have the same problem with
SourceForge... You simply forget! :-)
Well, I agree with Pier. I'm an idiot,
Excellent little utility... however closer network-wise is often
significantly different than closer geographically, for instance California
is likely a lot closer to Peru than Chile is (as an extreme example), if you
go by the packets fly instead of by the crow flies... Also when a closer
David Burry wrote:
Excellent little utility... however closer network-wise is often
significantly different than closer geographically,
Well, yeah, but that's what Akamai and the like get the big bucks for.
Sorry, we are really off-topic for dev@httpd. It might be slightly
closer on [EMAIL
Joshua Slive [mailto:joshua;slive.ca] wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
I looked into it back in the days, but the only way would
be to go down to
RIPE (IANA in the US) to see where that IP is coming from,
doing some
weirdo
WHOIS parsing and stuff... _WAY_ overkilling... Anyhow this
Jeroen Massar wrote:
A easy fix for the Sourceforge syndrome would be :
Interesting idea. I'm leaning towards just doing something like a
href=...Mirrors of httpd-.../a, which would be ugly, but clear.
Joshua.
34 matches
Mail list logo
