On 01/06/2016 12:08 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote: > Martin Zobel-Helas schrieb am Mittwoch, dem 06. Jänner 2016: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 13:55:31 +0000, Marcin Kulisz wrote: >>> If this mirror is not intended to be used by public outside Azure I'm not >>> really convinced that it should be available under debian.org domain for simple >>> reason service is not (and probably not going to be) under DSA control. >> with my DSA hat on: none of the mirrors under ftp.CC.debian.org are >> under DSA control. Some of the mirrors might be administrated by >> individual members of the DSA team, but none is official under DSA >> control. > Yes, but this isn't one of those. > > Hosters usually have their http://mirror.$hoster/, such as > http://mirror.nl.leaseweb.net/debian/. > > I do not see why this should be under .debian.org if it's not intended > for the general public. Having something under mirrors.azure or > whatever this is called seems perfectly reasonable. > > Cheers, We did talk briefly about naming conventions for cloud infrastructure, so this is a nice tie into that conversation, which hopefully we can have now. Regarding this particular cloud instance, I also do not see the point in having it under d.o. if it is not for external connections. Perhaps once an internal consensus is reached on the naming convention this cloud instance could follow suit. As we now have "debian.mirrors.debian.org", I would think about "$vendor.mirrors.debian.org" and, if they really want to mirror debug, also "debug.$vendor.mirrors.debian.org". But I'm open to suggestions. Separately I do like idea of $vendor.mirror.d.o. as it shows who the sponsor is and subtly indicates the mirror is not a Debian owned/operated mirror. $type.$vendor.mirrors.d.o looks good on paper but could get out of hand considering we have ports, backports, etc... Best regards, Donald Norwood
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature