From owner-freebsd-chat Thu May 3 21: 7:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594B637B424 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14180; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:07:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAjza4NB; Thu May 3 21:07:35 2001 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA20118; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:12:04 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200105040412.VAA20118@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Concern over ftp.freebsd.org To: brad.knowles@skynet.be (Brad Knowles) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 04:12:03 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), jkh@osd.bsdi.com (Jordan Hubbard), jessemonroy@email.com, jessem@livecam.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Brad Knowles" at May 04, 2001 12:20:29 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > I also believe that this is a legitimate topic for -hackers, > > since code which can not be obtained, can not be the subject > > of active developement. > > There I have to disagree. This subject is applicable to all of > FreeBSD as it is to any one particular mailing list, and therefore > the most suitable mailing list for this discussion is -chat. Most people do not subscribe to chat. The most applicable mailing list is probably the one with the largest subscribership... > > As someone who uses FreeBSD in a business context, and has off > > and on since 1993, it is alarming to go out and try to grab a > > distribution, only to find out that it's not where you expected > > it to be. > > Surely it's on the mirrors, yes? No, it's not. > > It's also extremely alarming to find out that the official > > mirrors have mirrored the disappearance. > > Really? This is the first I had heard of this. Could you elaborate? See other posting. > > I personally only found out as a result of attempting to build > > a release locally, only to have it fail to retrieve two of the > > 35 ports distribution files needed to perform that operation. > > > > When this happened, it seriously underscored the degree to which > > the FreeBSD project depends on good faith effort by agencies not > > under the projects direct control (as Linux depends on the good > > faith and continued existance of Linus and those lieutenants who > > hold the keys to the non-repository maintained source tree). > > It would seem to me that this would be precisely the sort of > thing that would be most resistant to having the central repository > disappear (or otherwise be unavailable). Could you help me > understand how this sort of thing could happen, and how the problem > might be addressed? This has to do with programs -- with specific versions -- on which release tagged builds depend. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message