On Mar 17 21:55:33, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2010-03-17, Jan Stary wrote:
> > (It has changed back and forth in the last month.)
>
> I tried using index.txt files for timestamps to monitor the latency
> of mirror updates, but had problems with some of them flipping
> between formats; I have a
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2010-03-17, Jan Stary wrote:
>> (It has changed back and forth in the last month.)
>
> I tried using index.txt files for timestamps to monitor the latency
> of mirror updates, but had problems with some of them flipping
> between form
On 2010-03-17, Jan Stary wrote:
> (It has changed back and forth in the last month.)
I tried using index.txt files for timestamps to monitor the latency
of mirror updates, but had problems with some of them flipping
between formats; I have a suspicion that some site or other
regenerates index.txt
On Mar 17 10:14:36, Nick Bender wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:44 AM, J.C. Roberts
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:02:19 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, what really is the purpose of index.txt being there then?
> >> To tell the times and sizes?
> >
> > To break scripts? ;)
> >
> >
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:44:50 -0700
"J.C. Roberts" wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:02:19 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
>
> > Anyway, what really is the purpose of index.txt being there then?
> > To tell the times and sizes?
>
> To break scripts? ;)
>
> To put it bluntly, index.txt seems pointless, or
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:44 AM, J.C. Roberts
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:02:19 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
>
>> Anyway, what really is the purpose of index.txt being there then?
>> To tell the times and sizes?
>
> To break scripts? ;)
>
> To put it bluntly, index.txt seems pointless, or more like
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:02:19 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
> Anyway, what really is the purpose of index.txt being there then?
> To tell the times and sizes?
To break scripts? ;)
To put it bluntly, index.txt seems pointless, or more likely, there is
some super double secret reason for it to still exis
On Mar 17 05:16:32, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:34:16 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
>
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=126678113118214&w=2
> >
> > Has the format of
> > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386/index.txt
> > changed again? It seems to be 'ls -l' now.
> >
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:34:16 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=126678113118214&w=2
>
> Has the format of
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386/index.txt
> changed again? It seems to be 'ls -l' now.
>
Hi Jan,
I think this is the second time I've seen you
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=126678113118214&w=2
Has the format of
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386/index.txt
changed again? It seems to be 'ls -l' now.
> It seems the format of
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386/index.txt
> has changed again from 'ls -l' to plain 'ls'.
> Should scripts expect this format from now on?
Yes, it is required by the installer.
It seems the format of
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386/index.txt
has changed again from 'ls -l' to plain 'ls'.
Should scripts expect this format from now on?
12 matches
Mail list logo