Re: Too few up-to-date CD image mirrors
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Too few up-to-date CD image mirrors
- From: Josip Rodin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 05:40:46 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20021202054046.B30680@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.A41.email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:45:54PM +0100
- References: <20021129214728.GB15273@dragon.kitenet.net> <Pine.A41.email@example.com>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:45:54PM +0100, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
> > Or course it would be best if I had a canoical site to run the checking
> > program against, then it could just do a straightforward comparison.
> > Unfortunatly, it seems that cdimage.debian.org no longer carries isos,
> > and so there is no canoical site? Is that right?
> That has been a main issue for getting other mirrors to mirror the images
> too. "They aren't on cdimage.debian.org, so why should we bother with
> some kind of not as official ones." The fact that we carry isos with
> released md5sums seems not as important. Or just a convenient excuse to be
> a bit more lazy.
Hey, cut them some slack -- AFAICT, we just left cdimage.d.o lingering there
with the old images for months, and nobody informed the less involved of the
mirror admins about any changes. Heck, just a few weeks ago I mentioned some
of the broken links to Phil and his response was more like "oops, better fix
I know for a fact that mirror admins are a relatively clueless bunch, but I
also know that they can be educated given enough effort.