| 1 |
Il giorno gio, 20/01/2011 alle 21.02 +0100, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> It isn't exactly a solution and the interim has lasted for years now. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
No, for years now we had policies going one way ("don't use dev.g.o") |
| 5 |
because they were written at one point by one person, and practices for |
| 6 |
most of us going the other (using dev.gentoo.org), as the original |
| 7 |
reason not to use it is no longer relevant. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Now we're re-joining policy and practice. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> What legitimate use does mirror://gentoo retain when we do have a |
| 12 |
> solution? Ultimate patch attached. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes and? We're going to have a distinct mirror://gentoo-projects/ (just |
| 15 |
to be on the safe side for overlays mainly) to fetch the distfiles for |
| 16 |
the custom packages. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> The way I see it, losing important files because you didn't |
| 19 |
> store copies privately or publicly is not a problem our distfiles |
| 20 |
> mirrors should solve. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
For Gentoo-produced distfiles, it is nothing new that we have to have |
| 23 |
long term access available. We've been meaning to for years as you said. |
| 24 |
I'm positive that the issue went to the council once already. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Let's be clear here: Infra is the same page as this; this _is_ going |
| 27 |
through. This was being worked on for months and months, and people |
| 28 |
start complain now because... they are being asked for all of us to |
| 29 |
follow a single policy rather than case-by-case whether to delete |
| 30 |
distfiles or not? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
There isn't _more_ work to be done with the exception of using a script |
| 33 |
that signs the files rather than simply scp'ing them over, so it's not a |
| 34 |
matter of "you're asking us to do more work in the future" as much as |
| 35 |
"you're asking us to follow a procedure". Well, duh! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 39 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives