| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:55:14PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:49:59AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hola all. |
| 4 |
> [snip] |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> under 'Deletions for Sunday May 01 2005' |
| 7 |
> unknown: |
| 8 |
> portage-2.0.51.20.tar.bz2 sandbox-1.2.tar.bz2 |
| 9 |
> Perhaps a major glitch here, since portage-2.0.51.20 is the latest version? |
| 10 |
Jason deployed .20 via distfiles-local to get it into the mirrors prior to |
| 11 |
adding the ebuild. |
| 12 |
So why is that file in the list of files that are marked for deletion? |
| 13 |
Becuase at the time of the run, _no_ ebuild claimed that file. We |
| 14 |
didn't push the portage ebuild into the tree until .20 tarball was in |
| 15 |
the mirrors. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So it's valid. It's also the reason we wait a full week before |
| 18 |
actually removing any file from the mirror tier. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Also, will the script be re-run before actual deletions take place? (I'm |
| 22 |
> tracking down instances of nomirror that shouldn't be there). |
| 23 |
Yes. I'll be restaggering the deletions to run during the first week |
| 24 |
it's live, so you've got a week. :) |
| 25 |
What *can* be done, but requires a damn good reason, is that |
| 26 |
individual files can have their deletion times screwed with- same way |
| 27 |
I'm staggering the deletes. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
That said, I don't care to do it unless requested. Mentioning it, |
| 30 |
because in special cases/circumstances it may be needed (just the same |
| 31 |
as in special cases/circumstances, cvs->rsync can be turned off if |
| 32 |
someone breaks the tree). If a file is marked for deletion, you've |
| 33 |
got a week from detection to either fix the ebuild, or add an ebuild |
| 34 |
in- this however is valid. The mirror tier isn't a dumping ground :) |
| 35 |
~brian |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives