| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:19:11 +0000 |
| 2 |
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:50:49PM +0200, Corentin Chary wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> $ ./mirrors.py --all --count |
| 6 |
> > >> 297 ?? ?? http://pear.php.net |
| 7 |
> > >> 297 ?? ?? http://pear.php.net/get |
| 8 |
> > >> 88 ?? ?? ??http://pecl.php.net |
| 9 |
> > >> 88 ?? ?? ??http://pecl.php.net/get |
| 10 |
> > > These are already mirror bouncers. If you visit the above, you'll |
| 11 |
> > > get the closest mirror for downloading. |
| 12 |
> > And since there is already ~10 "mirrors" with only one actual |
| 13 |
> > backend, should they go to thirdpartymirrors or not ? If not, what |
| 14 |
> > about this pseudo-mirrors already present in thirdpartymirrors ? |
| 15 |
> I think we should add the pseudo-mirrors, but explicitly mark them as |
| 16 |
> such in the file, so that they don't get duplicate entries added (eg |
| 17 |
> adding us.pear, de.pear and the pear bouncer is bad. Should have just |
| 18 |
> the bouncer). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It'd be great if we could add some kind of additional mirror entries, |
| 21 |
which would be used by repoman to signal missing mirror:// entries but |
| 22 |
won't be used for downloads. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Michał Górny |
Archives