Silly Mirroring crap

_Gandalf_ · 2006-01-18 22:07:00

Why don't we make mirrors ourselves? Personaly i can offer Space for AUR for free but unfortunately my upload is 1MB/s so it can go nasty if there is a huge requests!!!
but i guess it's easy to create mirrors and redirect user to a random mirror on each download! what do you think?

jakob · 2006-01-19 07:16:56

hm but then every new package would have to be uploaded to your mirror... that raises the amount of work, which is, i think against the philosophy of the pkgbuild-system (make it as easy and fast as possible)

Dusty · 2006-01-19 17:13:28

you can create a mirror using rsync. I know Xentac maintains a local mirror and then allows all the systems inside his network to update from that.

Dusty

_Gandalf_ · 2006-01-19 19:15:56

Yeah we can make everyone to update the package he maintain by uploading on a mirror the file, change his PKGBUILD and then all other servers will just update with rsync

Dusty · 2006-01-19 19:59:17

My point is that rsync is already available on the arch mirros.

_Gandalf_ · 2006-01-19 20:01:37

yes i know what u mean but the problem here are files that doesn't exist on archlinux servers so we need to get them all first and then mirror them!

tomk · 2006-01-19 20:12:55

I thought this thread was about sourceforge mirrors.... :?: :?

_Gandalf_ · 2006-01-19 20:15:49

Indeed, but we can create our private mirror for files from there, no?

AndyRTR · 2006-01-19 20:26:32

Why that? The packager will have to download the source everytime he makes a new version.

But why should users download a source from a second mirror when they want to have a binary pkg?

Wouldn't it be better to have more binaries from AUR? Something like a mirror automaticly filled by aurbuild?

_Gandalf_ · 2006-01-19 20:28:41

that's a good idea to have unsupported binary like community, but what i was saying is that sourceforge became payed now so we must set our own server to host sources! got me? and btw i don't think the packager would mind uploading the source as well

Dusty · 2006-01-19 20:43:27

tomk wrote:

I thought this thread was about sourceforge mirrors.... :?: :?

good point -- splitted.

Dusty

Dusty · 2006-01-19 20:44:58

_Gandalf_ wrote:

that's a good idea to have unsupported binary like community

No, that is a very bad idea. Unsupported packages are inherently untrustworthy. And we really don't need yet another package repo. A better idea would be to perhaps put more packages in community (meaning we need more TUs). A better idea yet, IMHO, is to put more packages in extra (meaning we need more developers).

Dusty

AndyRTR · 2006-01-19 21:18:13

What's the difference in having more "devs" for extra packages or more TUs for more binary packages in community? I don't get the point.

I'd prefer the more flexible community binaries. But when TUs mark a pkg as "safe" why not make an unsupported binary?

And I cannot see a problem getting more devs/packagers for extra. Arch is for "advanced" users. Many users are filling the AUR. So we should have enough of them ;-) I'm thinking about how you will manage future architectures? The day for 64bit will come ;-)

Snowman · 2006-01-19 21:38:15

AndyRTR wrote:

What's the difference in having more "devs" for extra packages or more TUs for more binary packages in community? I don't get the point.

The difference between extra and community is that extra is an official repo while community is not. Also I think that devs are partipating in the direction the distro is going and take part in the important decisions. TUs only maintain the community repo and are responsible of the AUR.

AndyRTR wrote:

I'd prefer the more flexible community binaries. But when TUs mark a pkg as "safe" why not make an unsupported binary?

When a TU marks a package as safe, it only means that the package doesn't contain any malicious code and that it is following the packaging guidelines. A safe package might not build, install or work properly. To make "unsupported" binary would mean that the TU must build the package and make sure that it installs and work properly. That would be very time consuming. The better way is to have more TU so more pkg can be maintain in community.

AndyRTR wrote:

And I cannot see a problem getting more devs/packagers for extra. Arch is for "advanced" users. Many users are filling the AUR. So we should have enough of them ;-) I'm thinking about how you will manage future architectures? The day for 64bit will come ;-)

More devs will also help.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-01-18 22:07:00

Silly Mirroring crap

#2 2006-01-19 07:16:56

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#3 2006-01-19 17:13:28

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#4 2006-01-19 19:15:56

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#5 2006-01-19 19:59:17

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#6 2006-01-19 20:01:37

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#7 2006-01-19 20:12:55

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#8 2006-01-19 20:15:49

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#9 2006-01-19 20:26:32

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#10 2006-01-19 20:28:41

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#11 2006-01-19 20:43:27

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#12 2006-01-19 20:44:58

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#13 2006-01-19 21:18:13

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

#14 2006-01-19 21:38:15

Re: Silly Mirroring crap

Board footer