Re: non-free/contrib policy
Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mozcom.com> writes:
> That's a good point. It could happen. Even if it doesn't, it
> seems very U.S.-centric of us to structure the worldwide Debian
> ftp facilities around some wierd and much-derided legal restrictions
> applicable only in the U.S.
Yes.
> I see the following (weak) objections to this:
> ...
Not a big deal but
7. Huge symlink farms can be trouble for people trying to use
mirror to capture a portion of the distribution (say
main/source, contrib/source, non-free/source, and
non-US/source). AFAIK the way you set up mirror to do this
flattens all the symlinks which could (if files are symlinked to
multiple locations) result in a large number of duplicate files.
We need a smarter mirror that can generate symlinks if and only
if one copy of the file is already in (or about to be in) the
mirror tree.
> 4. There might be some objection to locating the primary ftp site
> outside the U.S. (if so, objectors should provide sound
> arguments to back up the objections)
As long as it's a reasonably secure site. Who cares...
> 6. Some U.S.-based ftp sites might have concern about making the
> non-exportable crypto packages available on their sites. Ditto
> some dutch sites for the noex-dutch stuff. If they do, they
> could delete those packages from the "packages" trees.
Or not mirror them (use exclude_patt, we could even maintain a list).
--
Rob
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: