On 09/19/2010 12:16 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:
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.
Well stated. My feelings 100%
