Il giorno gio, 20/01/2011 alle 21.02 +0100, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto:
> It isn't exactly a solution and the interim has lasted for years now.
No, for years now we had policies going one way ("don't use dev.g.o")
because they were written at one point by one person, and practices for
most of us going the other (using dev.gentoo.org), as the original
reason not to use it is no longer relevant.
Now we're re-joining policy and practice.
> What legitimate use does mirror://gentoo retain when we do have a
> solution? Ultimate patch attached.
Yes and? We're going to have a distinct mirror://gentoo-projects/ (just
to be on the safe side for overlays mainly) to fetch the distfiles for
the custom packages.
> The way I see it, losing important files because you didn't
> store copies privately or publicly is not a problem our distfiles
> mirrors should solve.
For Gentoo-produced distfiles, it is nothing new that we have to have
long term access available. We've been meaning to for years as you said.
I'm positive that the issue went to the council once already.
Let's be clear here: Infra is the same page as this; this _is_ going
through. This was being worked on for months and months, and people
start complain now because... they are being asked for all of us to
follow a single policy rather than case-by-case whether to delete
distfiles or not?
There isn't _more_ work to be done with the exception of using a script
that signs the files rather than simply scp'ing them over, so it's not a
matter of "you're asking us to do more work in the future" as much as
"you're asking us to follow a procedure". Well, duh!
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
