| 1 |
On 04/24/2012 09:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:19:11 +0000 |
| 3 |
> "Robin H. Johnson"<robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:50:49PM +0200, Corentin Chary wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> $ ./mirrors.py --all --count |
| 7 |
>>>>> 297 ?? ?? http://pear.php.net |
| 8 |
>>>>> 297 ?? ?? http://pear.php.net/get |
| 9 |
>>>>> 88 ?? ?? ??http://pecl.php.net |
| 10 |
>>>>> 88 ?? ?? ??http://pecl.php.net/get |
| 11 |
>>>> These are already mirror bouncers. If you visit the above, you'll |
| 12 |
>>>> get the closest mirror for downloading. |
| 13 |
>>> And since there is already ~10 "mirrors" with only one actual |
| 14 |
>>> backend, should they go to thirdpartymirrors or not ? If not, what |
| 15 |
>>> about this pseudo-mirrors already present in thirdpartymirrors ? |
| 16 |
>> I think we should add the pseudo-mirrors, but explicitly mark them as |
| 17 |
>> such in the file, so that they don't get duplicate entries added (eg |
| 18 |
>> adding us.pear, de.pear and the pear bouncer is bad. Should have just |
| 19 |
>> the bouncer). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> It'd be great if we could add some kind of additional mirror entries, |
| 22 |
> which would be used by repoman to signal missing mirror:// entries but |
| 23 |
> won't be used for downloads. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We could just add them in thirpartymirrors under fake names that nobody |
| 26 |
will use. |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Zac |
Archives