linking to directories without index.html | website mirroring issues
[removed -boot and cesarb from CC:, the discussion below shouldn't bother those]
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:05:50AM -0400, James A. Treacy wrote:
> > > > I disagree, it's useful, having directories without index.html is bad.
> > >
> > > I deny it is actually useful. All of its information is more
> > > completely and clearly stated at
> > > http://www.debian.org/releases/potato/index.*.html.
>
> I seem to have missed most of this discussion, so the following may not
> be relevant.
>
> Directories that are used as links should contain index.html as well as
> index.*.html. This is because an available variant with no language extension
> is displayed (index.html in this case) if no language can be agreed upon.
> This is why all the index.html are symlinks on the web site,
> index.html -> index.en.html
Yes, I think both Adam and I knew that :) The question is whether we want to
link to those arch directories? Does it matter if the user finds the
directory on his/her own and notices a bunch of files instead of a nice
index?
> > Redirections are done thought apache's httpd.conf files, right? If so, we
> > can't do it, the mirrors won't have it.
>
> The mirrors are a royal pain. They really tie our hands when it comes to
> choosing how to implement things. Are they worth it? I'm not convinced.
Maybe we could pick a few mirrors whose maintainers would let us (Debian
people) an account, or some way of instant editing of a sub-httpd.conf file
(which they'd include in their /etc/apache/httpd.conf using the `include'
command).
Anyway, I doubt many people use mirrors, as www.debian.org itself is quite
fast from mostly everywhere. Especially considering how mirrors pulling off
www.d.o are usually one day out of date with what's in CVS :<
On related note, we should make the push-mirrors pull every 12 or 8 hours
now that we don't depend on daily dinstall runs. (the /Packages files
rebuild should be skipped in that case, of course)
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: