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

Re: anonftpsync update, 2nd try

Simon Paillard un jour écrivit:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:34:35PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

Funny, I used this one for years, when I thought deleting after the first
stage is NOT a good idea, since the packages in pool shouldn't be deleted
before Packages* and Release* are updated :))

Damn, I should reported that time. Isn't this 'anonftpsync' script somewhere
in debian package?

It is not, and the wish has already been reported in #363349.

Is packaging a single script worthwhile ?
Since all admins should subscribe to debian-mirror-announce, I'm not sure.

I also don't think it will be very useful. Most mirrors offer a lot more than just Debian, and many have their own custom scripts.

I never used it, but if It is really wanted, could 'debmirror' be adapted to support exactly what was asked with a configuration option?

To be really useful, a new package would have to be designed so that we can easily add, manage and monitor the mirroring of many projects and be very flexible. It would ideally be able to manage the cron entries or use some way to limit the number of projects synced at the same time. My own scripts also take special measures when the machine load is too high; it is often useful for me when there is a major releases like FC6, Edgy or Mandrake.

I host about 50 projects on my mirror, and many have their own peculiarities. For Debian/Ubtuntu, it is date -u > /project/trace/${HOSTNAME} and the way to do 2 stages updates. So such a mirroring system would need to offer great flexibility.

Downloading and installing an existing script is so trivial for any competent mirror maintainer that I don't see how a package for a single script would be that useful.

Also, this package would be useless for Debian mirrors that use something else than Debian (there is plenty of them). It would also be useless for me and probably for most important mirrors that use their own customs scripts.

Simon Valiquette

Reply to: