[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: state of the cdrom mirrors report

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, jason andrade wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Many sites have old isos, or no isos, or a nonstandard directory
> > structure or filenames, earning a 0 in the "binary" column. And of
> > course a lot of mirrors don't have source.
> hmm, i have been skipping most of this thread.  what new isos ? i
> was under the impression (as of the last few years) that isos are
> generated once for a release and unless there are some exceptional
> circumstances are never regenerated without an increment of some
> kind.

New isos as in 3.0. Many sites just carry 2.2_r[67].

> at ftp.au.debian.org, we generated the images using jigdo and then
> did a final sync against the "authoritative" images at cdimage.debian.org.
> we never check after that for various reasons
> o images are never supposed to change
> o there could be some problem at cdimage which would wipe out our
>   local archive also

Yes, this is the good method of handling cdimage mirroring.

> so has there been some fundamental shift in the way debian is producing
> iso images - as evidenced by the very high number of sites below which
> get a 0 in the binary column ?

Just that cdimage.debian.org does not carry the images, just the jigdo
files. That is enough to get most sites not updated.

/Mattias Wadenstein

Reply to: