On 09/19/2010 04:45 PM, Steve Holmes wrote: > Most distros like to build up their presence and increase the numbers > and usage. Obviously if everyone goes out there and attempts to build > local mirrors and all, that would put a big drain on the arch package > update process. I don't think many people are doubting that and maybe > it should be discouraged however. But the withholding of technical > knowledge with such arrogance is in poor taste if you ask me. Like > others have been saying all along now, the original information was > pulled and no technical explanation was ever offered for why it was > wrong. > > Now because of all this "secrecy" (in appearance), I've increased my > curiosity and may look into building a local mirror just so I know how > to do it. Had the thing on the wiki site been corrected, I would have > probably just read it and kept it in the back of my mind for a day > when I would really need to do it. > You have a point when you say that all this discussion will increase the interest in creating a local mirror (for the people that read the mailing list). Some people will think about it a bit more but never try it (too much hassle for something they don't need or use), the ones that really need it will either find a way to do it or have already created a local mirror. It seems to me that the major point here is the difference between the wiki sort of endorsing a method to do it (which may put an higher load on a mirror, which the maintainer needs to pay for) or the user to come up with a way to do it. I don't have any doubts that any half decent arch user can do so if he/she wishes/needs to do it (these are the users most likely to need it anyway), but having an example on the wiki that can possibly tax a mirror because the procedure is not the most appropriate and the user trying it just copies the procedures verbatim is just wrong. -- Mauro Santos
