Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:20:42 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [removed ports] sysutils/cpuburn Message-ID: <4EC3806A.6080901@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EC371F5.1050008@FreeBSD.org> References: <4EC2786E.5060907@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-_pt3zYv7--RZ-89uwP4utEfcedq4n0xSwZmAxuFuTCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EC2A4FA.3010101@FreeBSD.org> <4EC371F5.1050008@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 16/11/2011 10:19 Doug Barton said the following:
> On 11/15/2011 09:44, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> It should be
>>
>> MASTER_SITES= ${MASTER_SITE_LOCAL}
>> MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR= avg
>
> Um, no. That's not an advantage over the previous situation, where the
> distfile mirror became the only working master site by default.
Umm, I am not sure I understand the reasoning here, so would appreciate an
explanation. I agree that this is not a great improvement over the previous
status quo (except that it is now clear that the distfile is hosted by us on
purpose, not by accident). But do you suggest that having <all freebsd mirrors
plus one site under avg's control (with unknown reliability characteristics)> is
much better than just <all freebsd mirrors> ? Because it doesn't appear to be
that way to me.
Thank you.
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EC3806A.6080901>