You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#51 2010-09-22 22:47:32
- fukawi2
- Ex-Administratorino
- From: .vic.au
- Registered: 2007-09-28
- Posts: 6,230
- Website
Re: Removing the "Local Mirror" article?
Ah, I see what you mean... I was thinking about:
kernel-2.40.0-1 in [core]
kernel-2.42.0-1 in [testing]
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
#52 2010-09-22 22:59:23
- pyther
- Member
- Registered: 2008-01-21
- Posts: 1,395
- Website
Re: Removing the "Local Mirror" article?
Exactly. I was thinking about adding both methods in the script and commenting them both out (forcing a user to choose), but I'm not sure some users will fully understand the differences between the methods.
This is almost why I would not prefer a script in the wiki article. This becomes: Should we prevent useful information "copy-and-pasters."
My outlook...
Pro: Nice tool and helps everyone who really needs a local mirror to set it up correctly
Con: "Copy-and-Pasters" will just copy and paste and enable something without needing or understanding what they are doing
Opinions are more than welcomed.
Offline
#53 2010-09-23 06:15:16
- T-u-N-i-X
- Member
- From: İstanbul
- Registered: 2006-03-14
- Posts: 435
- Website
Re: Removing the "Local Mirror" article?
Nice improvement I think.. 
But the problem is I don't believe/think that we should think for the users. Yes; some people can blindly copy-paste everything and try to work it out. But I tend to think that these guys who are interested in mirrors are smart. Take Debian into account for instance. You can use apt-proxy or create a new local mirror.
In a quick review, I wasn't able to see what was missing in your script but maybe we can just leave out the sync address (tier-1) so that they need to dig deeper.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodiet?
Offline