Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:49:35 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Mendes_Lu=EDs?= <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mirror Site Requirements... Message-ID: <3F14147F.2010706@jonny.eng.br> In-Reply-To: <20030715140016.GA11840@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20030712173332.GB14686@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20030715140016.GA11840@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
Ken Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:33:32PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote:
>
>
>>There were no comments on the set of Mirror Site Requirements so I
>>will proceed with those unless someone(s) start to object.
>
> One person mentioned the discussion about mirror site requirements
> snuck by him because the subject line was a bit confusing. Sorry,
> that's another thing for me to note as part of organizing discussions. :-)
>
> The question he raised was whether requiring the packages as part
> of being a Tier-2 was necessary. Using the 5.1 release as an example
> what I proposed as the Tier-2 requirements was that they carry:
>
> releases/i386/5.1-RELEASE/
> ports/i386/packages-5.1-release/
>
> I don't think it's necessary for them to carry the -current packages.
You mean that only the packages from the lastest stable release is
needed at tier-2, right? Considering the -packages growth, I don't
think we can force a tier-2 to carry more than one set...
> Is that a reasonable requirement? The reason I included the ports/
> stuff was related to sysinstall - my understanding is that during an
> FTP based install sysinstall will go looking there when it wants to
> offer installing extra packages as part of the baseline install (well,
> a symlink in the -RELEASE dir takes it there :-). Is that correct? I
> consider an official mirror site being someplace we would like to have
> fully functional in this regard so that if a new user wants to add in
> extra packages sysinstall works as expected.
Ok.
> To qualify as a Tier-2 they could also choose to not include the stuff
> needed to do the FTP-based installs, opting to only carry the ISO's
> instead. The goal was just to make sure a user led to this site would
> find "a complete set" for either an FTP based install or an ISO download.
Wouldn't this break the previous requirement? At least some kind
of distinction should be made to avoid these sites in the sysinstall
program.
Jonny
--
João Carlos Mendes Luís - Networking Engineer - jonny@jonny.eng.br
--
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values
or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized
violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
-- Samuel P. Huntington
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F14147F.2010706>