Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:49:26 +0200 From: Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingox@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed? Message-ID: <CAJ_iqtZT9zyh-ygCXd7mjs_Gft_bWVp8%2BppvXpJ04LOi0aCwtw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170420060017.GG74780@home.opsec.eu> References: <58F61A8D.1030309@a1poweruser.com> <CALfReyctL3vTt756oyh1ZTf%2BkgpAOHwp_SUZQCFQiZDccFNMow@mail.gmail.com> <CAOjFWZ4naPVfQFEr7Hz%2B9A0_fa5O1V0H%2Butd9eMo02eHPGxehg@mail.gmail.com> <68ad0daa-b1f5-f3a6-f056-dcf2f0047d94@freebsd.org> <CAJ_iqtYCzurer52X5JVsgvDvEeuvAFRPXyYea9=6=rLcmeACsA@mail.gmail.com> <20170420060017.GG74780@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> wrote: > Hi! > >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors discard it all at the >> > time of update. > >> Do they have to? >> Why couldn't pkg mirrors keep say, the four latest quarterly sets >> all the time? > > Because the URL for the latest quarterly is one stable URL. Obviously this has to be changed. As I wrote: "No extra work involved once the setup is configured and tested". So yes, there is some work needed, but it would be a one-time job. If anyone has any real arguments as to why the FreeBSD project can't do it this way, let's hear them. HTH -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ_iqtZT9zyh-ygCXd7mjs_Gft_bWVp8%2BppvXpJ04LOi0aCwtw>