Re: Too few up-to-date CD image mirrors
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Too few up-to-date CD image mirrors
- From: Josip Rodin <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 05:37:55 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20021202053755.A30680@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <20021129202307.GA2415@nenya.lan>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:23:07PM +0100
- References: <20021125232054.GL12911@netexpress.net> <email@example.com> <20021126184121.GE19087@mizar.alcor.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20021128221301.GA9469@dragon.kitenet.net> <20021129202307.GA2415@nenya.lan>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:23:07PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
> Originally, the plan for 3.0r0 was that ISOs would be made available
> via jigdo and that mirrors would update using the "jigdo-mirror"
> script which I wrote especially for that purpose. (And I mailed all
> mirror admins with the details.) Later, the images would also become
> available "normally" via rsync (AFAIR), but somehow that never
> So let's do it their way: I propose that we offer rsync (and maybe
> HTTP?) access to the images again starting with 3.0r1. raff has enough
> disc space, so the size should not be a problem. Of course, we'd
> better implement some kind of access control. And what about
> cdimage.d.o? - it would be nice to have another "primary" mirror in
> Europe to distribute the load.
I asked Ryan (of DSA) about this and he told me that he'd prefer it if we
just had people use jigdo since the debian/ mirrors are plenty and likely
much faster than mirrors overloaded with heaps of rampant image downloaders.
Frankly I agree with that sentiment, there sure are plenty of better ways to
But then, we already have a bunch of mirrors that do have images, so
_something_ needs to be done to bring back the consistency.