Re: Mirrors et al. (was Re: New Markets)
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Warwick HARVEY wrote:
> I thought we came up with a good solution to all this shortly after
> the 1.0 debacle? (Bruce seems to have alluded to this in another part
> of his message.) That was to give each release a code name which
> would be used for the directory name, and then "stable", "unstable",
> "1.1", etc. would all be symbolic links to the relevant code name,
> with the version number links only put in *after* they were officially
> released. That way, no directories are renamed, and unreleased
> version numbers don't exist.
Yep, that makes sense. Quite a workable solution. Thanks for
explaining it, i didn't know what Bruce was referring to when he
mentioned code names.
> I'm sure we can arrange for advance notice on this list of the change,
> so anyone who wants to can disable their mirror just before it, move
> things by hand, re-enable after it, and not have to endure the flood.
> (I believe this has been done before.)
yeah, this is what i'm hoping to do when the time comes.
> > Hey, here's another idea:
> >
> > Set up a second anonymous ftp account, say "deb-anon". Make debian-1.1/
> > unreadable by "anonymous" but readable by "deb-anon". Those who bother
> > [...deleted...]
>
> Then there'll be a bunch of mirrors who want to mirror the unstable
> stuff, and they'll all need the same set up or we still wouldn't avoid
> the problem.
mirror preserves ownership & permissions, doesn't it?
Craig
Reply to: