Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:06:45 +0100 From: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: MASTER_SITE quality of emulation@, freebsd-emulation@ ports Message-ID: <20110301100645.90f5eeb6.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110228104240.32245ke5o34pco40@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20110226125814.3b0a46e5.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <20110227145125.12961olps6d8bapw@webmail.leidinger.net> <20110228101541.1926b275.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <20110228104240.32245ke5o34pco40@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: > Quoting Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> (from Mon, 28 Feb 2011 > 10:15:41 +0100): > > > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: > >> Quoting Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> (from Sat, 26 Feb 2011 > >> 12:58:14 +0100): > >> > >> > The distilator [1] shows that roughly 97% by a total of109969 all > >> > referenced distfiles fail to download. Resulting in countless > >> > timeouts. > >> > > >> > Excerpt from the most recent run: > >> > > >> > Maintainer ok bad % bad > >> > emulation@FreeBSD.org 1005 45696 97.85% > >> > freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org 1691 61577 97.33% > >> > >> > Ideas? > >> > >> Would it help to change the order of the master site list? I assume > >> that there are some which have everything. > > > > Unfortunately that wouldn't be much help to people who use > > MASTER_SORT. > > Yes. > > > I believe the best way would be to cleanup Mk/bsd.sites.mk. In > > particular MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX. > > I plan to have a look at a more recent linux distribution for our > linux_base. If I get the time, and if it will be fedora based > (probably it will, as it may make the update a little bit more > easy), this may mean the list will go back to what it was... > > > ports-mgmt/distilator can help identifying those sites. For > > instance: > > > > $ distilator /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base-f10/ > > > > Result: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~ehaupt/misc/linux_base-f10-distilator.log.gz > > > > A quick check would suggests to only keep: > > $ zcat linux_base-f10-distilator.log.gz | grep ^200 | awk '{print > > $3}' \ > > | perl -e 'use URI; while(<>) { chomp(); $u=URI->new($_); > > | print > > $u->host . "\n"; }' \ > > | sort | uniq > > > > archives.fedoraproject.org > > ftp.quicknet.nl > > ftp.rhd.ru > > ftp.udl.es > > mirror.steadfast.net > > > > ...but reducing MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX to those hosts shows that > > not even those > > mirrors are consistent. Hence my prior suggestion to get a complete > > :( > > > set of all distfiles > > needed by ports using MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX and mirror those on > > reliable mirrors. > > Should be easy to do (if a mirror is available). > > > I can assume that task if that's fine with emulation@ :-) > > I am fine with this. I try to deprecate the linux*f[6789]* ports > this week (I have to make up my mind if it will be one or two months > of grace time). If you just spend the time to have a look at the fc4 > and f10 ones, everything should arrive at a sane situation after the > expiration date. Ok, I think I'll look into it. I might wait until you're trough with expiring the said ports. Thanks for your feedback. Emanuel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110301100645.90f5eeb6.ehaupt>