Am 02.03.21 um 20:09 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
>> On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> Am 02.03.21 um 19:39 schr
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Matthias Seidel
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Am 02.03.21 um 19:39 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> I responded. T
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Am 02.03.21 um 19:39 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> Hi -
>>
>> I responded. The way the mirror system works is that there is a blanket
>> exclusion of the OpenOffice release di
Hi Dave,
Am 02.03.21 um 19:39 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> Hi -
>
> I responded. The way the mirror system works is that there is a blanket
> exclusion of the OpenOffice release directory from mirroring.
Yes, but if I remember the discussion right, Infra could now offer AOO
at least
Hi -
I responded. The way the mirror system works is that there is a blanket
exclusion of the OpenOffice release directory from mirroring.
Regards,
Dave
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:35 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> h
Hi all.
What do you think about it?
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=128428
Although it seems that only the source archives need to be served from
the mirrors I would not be unhappy if the ASF would serve AOO from their
mirror system as well.
Regards,
Matthias
smime.p7s
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 11:12 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: New Mirror OpenOffice
> You have asked for an alternate DL Link. This is the
> alternate DL link.
Just rea
Am 09.10.20 um 11:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 11:36 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: New Mirror OpenOffice
Check this link:
https://dist.Apache.Org/repos/dist/release/openoffice
2020 09:48:39 MESZ schrieb "Jörg Schmidt"
> :
>> Hello Dave,
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 8:12 PM
>>> To: dev
>>> Subject: Re: New Mirro
Am 09.10.20 um 13:12 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 12:36 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: New Mirror OpenOffice
Am 09.10.20 um 11:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
-Original Message-
From
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 12:36 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: New Mirror OpenOffice
>
> Am 09.10.20 um 11:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> >> -Original Messag
Am 09.10.20 um 11:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 11:36 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: New Mirror OpenOffice
Check this link:
https://dist.Apache.Org/repos/dist/release/openoffice
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 11:36 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: New Mirror OpenOffice
>
> Check this link:
> https://dist.Apache.Org/repos/dist/release/openoffice
yes, a
8:12 PM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: New Mirror OpenOffice
>
>> 9 years ago when the project joined it was decided that
>> OpenOffice was too heavy for the mirror system. Until
>> recently we had to let Infra know before we made a release in
>> order to make
Hello Dave,
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 8:12 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: New Mirror OpenOffice
> 9 years ago when the project joined it was decided that
> OpenOffice was too heavy for the
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 8:12 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mirror OpenOffice
>
> Am 08.10.20 um 19:53 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> >> -Original
Hi Jörg,
> On Oct 8, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 7:28 PM
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mir
Am 08.10.20 um 19:53 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 7:28 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mirror OpenOffice
Am 07.10.20 um 10:25 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
-Original Message
örg Schmidt wrote:
>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 7:28 PM
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mirror OpenOffice
>>>
>>> Am 0
noffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mirror OpenOffice
> >
> > Am 07.10.20 um 10:25 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 12:31
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 7:28 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mirror OpenOffice
>
> Am 07.10.20 um 10:25 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> >> -Original
Am 07.10.20 um 10:25 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 12:31 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Moderator
Cc: Desmond van der Winden - Serverion
Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mirror OpenOffice
Hi Desmond
Hello Marcus,
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 12:31 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Moderator
> Cc: Desmond van der Winden - Serverion
> Subject: Re: Fwd: New Mirror OpenOffice
>
> Hi
Hi Desmond,
thank you very much for your interest in Apache OpenOffice.
Please note that the Apache OpenOffice project do not have an own mirror
system anymore as it was as OpenOffice belonged to Sun and Oracle.
But Apache has an own mirror system you can participate in.
Especially for
*From:* Desmond van der Winden - Serverion [mailto:desm...@serverion.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, October 4, 2020, 17:54 UTC
*To:* dev-ow...@openoffice.apache.org
*Subject:* New Mirror OpenOffice
Hi,
We have set up a new mirror
> Should such information not come from Apache OpenOffice.
> How can I trust this?
>
> On 09/07/2020 11:24, Get Hosted Online - Accounts, Billing and Technical
> Support wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This is to notify you of our intention to mirror your infrastru
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 10:07 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: download from a mirror?
> The scripts for dist.apache.org/release that sync up Apache
> releases to the mirrors fully exclude the OpenO
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> Jörg Schmidt wrote:
>> But I was surprised that apparently not even a single mirror mirrors the
>> üpenoffice/ directory. In the past there were many mirors offering OOo, I
>> guess at least 20.
>
>
Jörg Schmidt wrote:
But I was surprised that apparently not even a single mirror mirrors the
üpenoffice/ directory. In the past there were many mirors offering OOo, I guess
at least 20.
In theory we have a mechanism for it:
http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi
but I don't think th
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 4:47 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: download from a mirror?
> many mirrors do not replicate the OpenOffice tree due to its
> very large
> size.
Yes, that's quite
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 4:47 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: download from a mirror?
>
> On 21/07/2018 Jörg Schmidt wrote:
> > Is there currently any alt
On 21/07/2018 Jörg Schmidt wrote:
Is there currently any alternative to Sourceforge for downloading?
(Because: The Apache mirror should not be used.)
ASF mirrors, with their current capabilities, should not be used for
downloads of the latest release due to disk space and bandwidth issues
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2018 4:45 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: download from a mirror?
>
> Am 21.07.2018 um 11:52 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> > Is there a reason that I can
after the move from Oracle to the ASF,
Apache and we have decided not to use the ASP mirror system as the size
of a single OpenOffice release is really big - and all releases together
are just insane big. We just don't wanted to risk complaints from the
sysadmins of the mirrors.
This is yea
Hello,
Is there a reason that I can't find AOO anywhere on the mirrors?
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi
Maybe it is just a technical problem that the directory openoffice/ is not
synchronized on the mirrors?
greetings,
Jörg
On 31/12/2016 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
The github mirror stopped updating the source tree over 10 months ago.
This was a known issue, reported months ago, but (unexpectedly) Infra
found the time to fix it earlier this week, so the broken Github
non-mirror is now a mirror again; see
https
FWIW,
The github mirror stopped updating the source tree over 10 months ago.
Cheers,
Pedro.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
as infra been asked to fix it?
>
> In the issue I say that the Github mirror is broken and I ask if there is a
> way to fix it. I consider this as a request to Infra to fix it.
>
> >Github mirrors do get stuck and go stale on occasion, and an Infra Jira to
> >ask them to unsti
Gavin McDonald wrote:
From: Andrea Pescetti
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11601
How long has it been broken?
I opened the above issue in April 2016.
Has infra been asked to fix it?
In the issue I say that the Github mirror is broken and I ask if there
is a way to fix it. I
On 08/19/2014 02:57 AM, Ray Dobie wrote:
> *Browser variables* *Values*navigator.appCodeName Mozillanavigator.appName
> Netscapenavigator.appVersion 5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36
> (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/36.0.1985.125 Safari/537.36 navigator.platformLinux
> x86_64 navigator.oscpuu
Hi,
Can you be more specific saying what you attempted to download, and what
issue you encountered? Also could be useful to know which mirror.
Thanks in advance.
Roberto
2014-08-19 11:57 GMT+02:00 Ray Dobie :
> *Browser variables* *Values*navigator.appCodeName Mozillanavigator.appN
*Browser variables* *Values*navigator.appCodeName Mozillanavigator.appName
Netscapenavigator.appVersion 5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/36.0.1985.125 Safari/537.36 navigator.platformLinux
x86_64 navigator.oscpuundefined navigator.cpuClassundefined
navigator.pr
the moment.
>>>
>>
>> We wouldn't link to it from the main download pages anyway.
>>
>> And of course the question is for what we do need the binaries on this
>>> mirrors if they are not found or used by the majority of our users.
>>>
>
o it from the main download pages anyway.
>
> And of course the question is for what we do need the binaries on this
>> mirrors if they are not found or used by the majority of our users.
>>
>
> It's a secondary mirror system. Although due to the usual size/bandwidt
es on this
mirrors if they are not found or used by the majority of our users.
It's a secondary mirror system. Although due to the usual size/bandwidth
considerations the OpenOffice project uses SourceForge, Infra did
significant work to be able to offer OpenOffice on the Apache mirr
>>
>
> Those "many" are still a minority. Juergen is right in saying that the
> download and installation experience for our users should not change.
>
> But this is not going to change anyway. In case this is not clear to
> everybody, the proposal only affects
"many" are still a minority. Juergen is right in saying that the
> download and installation experience for our users should not change.
>
> But this is not going to change anyway. In case this is not clear to
> everybody, the proposal only affects the secondary copy we store o
wnload and installation experience for our users should not change.
But this is not going to change anyway. In case this is not clear to
everybody, the proposal only affects the secondary copy we store on the
Apache mirror network. Nothing changes on SourceForge and nothing
changes in the users
r sure the simplest
>> solution,
>>>>> and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
>>>
>>> Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
>>> secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice
d if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
> >
> > Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
> > secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice not to offer
> > binaries from the Apache mirrors as a primary cha
e simplest
> solution,
> >>> and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
> >
> >
> > Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
> > secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice not to offer
> > bi
ally, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
> secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice not to offer
> binaries from the Apache mirrors as a primary channel due to
> size/bandwidth constraints. I like the idea to have a secondary mirror
> network at Ap
ont have a problem.
>
>
> Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
> secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice not to offer
> binaries from the Apache mirrors as a primary channel due to size/bandwidth
> constraints. I like the idea to have
lem.
>>>
>>
> Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
> secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice not to offer
> binaries from the Apache mirrors as a primary channel due to size/bandwidth
> constraints. I like the idea to have a
Andrew Rist wrote:
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest solution,
and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
secondary mirror network
Am 11/22/2013 07:37 PM, schrieb Andrew Rist:
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
On 22 November 2013 10:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
Hi.
We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
It
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
On 22 November 2013 10:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
Hi.
We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
It would be wise of us to have this solved before
On 22 November 2013 10:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
> >
> > It would be wise of us to have this solved before we release 4.1,
On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
>
> It would be wise of us to have this solved before we release 4.1, in order
> not to have a potential delay.
anybody is free to w
Hi.
We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
It would be wise of us to have this solved before we release 4.1, in order
not to have a potential delay.
The base discussion (please correct me if I am wrong) is which of 2
On 12.11.2013 20:08, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Herbert Duerr wrote:
On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
@herbert, if nobody objects will you reopen the ticket, or should I ?
I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a read-only mirror for now.
And what would be the advantage for real
gt;> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Herbert Duerr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
>&
reopen the ticket, or should I ?
I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a read-only mirror for now.
And what would be the advantage for real contributors in having a
read-only
GIT mirror? The complaints I've seen so far are mostly in the other
direction (i.e., committing or app
erbert Duerr wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @herbert, if nobody objects will you reopen the ticket, or should I ?
> >>>>
>
6:48, janI wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @herbert, if nobody objects will you reopen the ticket, or should I ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a read-only mirror for now.
>>>
>>>
&g
Am 11/12/2013 08:12 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Herbert Duerr wrote:
On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
@herbert, if nobody objects will you reopen the ticket, or should I ?
I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a read-only mirror
issue and requested a read-only mirror for now.
And what would be the advantage for real contributors in having a
read-only
GIT mirror? The complaints I've seen so far are mostly in the other
direction (i.e., committing or applying patches). I'm not talking about
generic advanta
or should I ?
> >>
> >> I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a read-only mirror for now.
> >
> >
> > And what would be the advantage for real contributors in having a
> read-only
> > GIT mirror? The complaints I've seen so far are mos
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Herbert Duerr wrote:
>>
>> On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
>>>
>>> @herbert, if nobody objects will you reopen the ticket, or should I ?
>>
>> I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a r
Herbert Duerr wrote:
On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
@herbert, if nobody objects will you reopen the ticket, or should I ?
I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a read-only mirror for now.
And what would be the advantage for real contributors in having a
read-only GIT mirror? The
11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
>>>>>> based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
>>>>>> comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can have a GIT Read
the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
> >>>> comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
> >>>>
> >>>> We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
> >>>>
> >>>>
>> comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
>>>>
>>>> We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
>>>>
>>>> We cannot have a GIT Read/write mirror (restriction from infra)
>>>>
>>>> We can
On 12.11.2013 17:06, janI wrote:
On 12 November 2013 16:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/12/13 4:48 PM, janI wrote:
Hi.
based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
We can have a GIT Read/O
it specialist).
> >>
> >> We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
> >>
> >> We cannot have a GIT Read/write mirror (restriction from infra)
> >>
> >> We can switch completely to GIT (which I for one would be against).
> >>
On 11/12/13 5:06 PM, Herbert Duerr wrote:
> On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
>> based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
>> comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
>>
>> We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror
ments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
>>>
>>> We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
>>>
>>> We cannot have a GIT Read/write mirror (restriction from infra)
>>>
>>> We can switch completely to GIT (which I for one wou
On 12 November 2013 16:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/12/13 4:48 PM, janI wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
> > comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
> >
>
ments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
> >>
> >> We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
> >>
> >> We cannot have a GIT Read/write mirror (restriction from infra)
> >>
> >> We can switch completely to GIT (w
On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote:
based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
We cannot have a GIT Read/write mirror (restriction from infr
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/12/13 4:48 PM, janI wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
>> comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
>>
>
On 11/12/13 4:48 PM, janI wrote:
> Hi.
>
> based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
> comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
>
> We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
>
> We cannot have a
Hi.
based on the discussion in thread "XML files are binary" and herberts
comments I had a chat with jfarrell (the infra git specialist).
We can have a GIT Read/Only mirror very easy (standard)
We cannot have a GIT Read/write mirror (restriction from infra)
We can switch complet
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Yovcho Yovchev wrote:
> Dear all,
> We create a linux distro mirrors - CentOS , Debian, FreeBSD, Ubuntu and few
> other open source projects.
> We want to mirror OpenOffice Project. We use this documentation but we
> mirror only old version. New
Dear all,
We create a linux distro mirrors - CentOS , Debian, FreeBSD, Ubuntu and
few other open source projects.
We want to mirror OpenOffice Project. We use this documentation but we
mirror only old version. New release are on sourceforge, not openoffice.org.
Can you tell me how can We
On 2013/05/28 2:50 PM, janI wrote:
We have INFRA 5590 pending. When I (and infra) reads it, its only a request
for a RO mirror.
Yes, it was assumed that a read-only mirror of our codebase would be an
essential step regardless on how we want to proceed.
A read-only mirror would have the
Hi.
We have INFRA 5590 pending. When I (and infra) reads it, its only a request
for a RO mirror.
I understood from another discussion, that we wanted to be able to do git
commit, that automatically updated the svn (orignial) repository.
I my understanding is correct the ticket should be updated
uot; for
en-US
files only and "localized" for all other languages.
- Due to Apache policy the source files must not be distributed by
mirrors,
but have to be offered from Apache servers only.
Is that actually true? I thought it was fine to distribute our source
tarballs via the Apac
y and "localized" for all other languages.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Due to Apache policy the source files must not be distributed by
>>>>> mirrors,
>>>>> but have to be offered from Apache servers only.
>>>>>
>>>>
ource files must not be distributed by mirrors,
but have to be offered from Apache servers only.
Is that actually true? I thought it was fine to distribute our source
tarballs via the Apache mirror network. The things that must be
distributed from the Apache dist server are the hash files and
and "localized" for all other languages.
>>>
>>> - Due to Apache policy the source files must not be distributed by mirrors,
>>> but have to be offered from Apache servers only.
>>
>> Is that actually true? I thought it was fine to distribute ou
On 31/03/2013 Marcus (OOo) wrote:
- A new structure could look like the following:
Some examples to make it more realistic:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/
4.0.0/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.0.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe
Good structure. It mixes the SDK and the
Is that actually true? I thought it was fine to distribute our source
tarballs via the Apache mirror network. The things that must be
distributed from the Apache dist server are the hash files and
detached signature files.
You are right, I've checked this with the current downloads. So, it can
st
ers only.
>
Is that actually true? I thought it was fine to distribute our source
tarballs via the Apache mirror network. The things that must be
distributed from the Apache dist server are the hash files and
detached signature files.
> New naming structure:
>
> - A new structure could look
On Mar 31, 2013 6:21 PM, "Marcus (OOo)" wrote:
>
> Am 03/31/2013 06:18 PM, schrieb janI:
>
>> On 31 March 2013 18:07, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>>> Many months ago we agreed to create a new file structure for the mirrors
>>> to get rid of some historical grown limitations and complexity.
>>>
>>> I w
Am 03/31/2013 06:18 PM, schrieb janI:
On 31 March 2013 18:07, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Many months ago we agreed to create a new file structure for the mirrors
to get rid of some historical grown limitations and complexity.
I want to continue this and come to a final result.
Current situation:
-
On 31 March 2013 18:07, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Many months ago we agreed to create a new file structure for the mirrors
> to get rid of some historical grown limitations and complexity.
>
> I want to continue this and come to a final result.
>
> Current situation:
>
> - Mostly it's about to differ
Many months ago we agreed to create a new file structure for the mirrors
to get rid of some historical grown limitations and complexity.
I want to continue this and come to a final result.
Current situation:
- Mostly it's about to differenciate the files between "stable" for
en-US files only
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 02/04/2013 09:53 PM, schrieb Simon Schubert:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> you still looking for mirror servers? I work at the University of
>> Mannheim and I'm the administrator of mirror.informatik.uni-mannhe
Am 02/04/2013 09:53 PM, schrieb Simon Schubert:
Hello,
you still looking for mirror servers? I work at the University of
Mannheim and I'm the administrator of mirror.informatik.uni-mannheim.de
<http://mirror.informatik.uni-mannheim.de>.
The server has a 2Gbps Uplink.
Best re
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
