Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:09:00 -0400 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: =?unknown-8bit?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Mendes_Lu=EDs?= <jonny@jonny.eng.br> Cc: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Subject: Re: Mirror Site Requirements... Message-ID: <20030715170900.GR11840@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> In-Reply-To: <3F14147F.2010706@jonny.eng.br> References: <20030712173332.GB14686@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20030715140016.GA11840@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <3F14147F.2010706@jonny.eng.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:49:35AM -0300, Joo Carlos Mendes Lus wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:33:32PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote:
> >The question he raised was whether requiring the packages as part
> >of being a Tier-2 was necessary. Using the 5.1 release as an example
> >what I proposed as the Tier-2 requirements was that they carry:
> >
> > releases/i386/5.1-RELEASE/
> > ports/i386/packages-5.1-release/
> >
> >I don't think it's necessary for them to carry the -current packages.
>
> You mean that only the packages from the lastest stable release is
> needed at tier-2, right? Considering the -packages growth, I don't
> think we can force a tier-2 to carry more than one set...
Sorry - yes. I'm having problems mapping directory names into something
useful for this conversation. They should carry:
ports/i386/packages-5.1-release/
and should not be *required* to carry:
ports/i386/packages-5-current/
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030715170900.GR11840>