From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3O83Sra022225 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:03:28 GMT Received: from adsl-67-39-48-198.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net ([67.39.48.198] helo=exodus) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DPc50-0003IL-VN for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:03:03 +0000 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:03:47 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] upcoming mirror cleansing Message-ID: <20050424080347.GH2751@exodus.wit.org> References: <20050423134959.GA26414@exodus.wit.org> <20050423235514.GB30573@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050423235514.GB30573@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 6e4c55a3-7807-483a-9c94-ce8d66c742ec X-Archives-Hash: bc72acc38946469c4ad3b5cae8c27cdd On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:55:14PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:49:59AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > > Hola all. > [snip] > > under 'Deletions for Sunday May 01 2005' > unknown: > portage-2.0.51.20.tar.bz2 sandbox-1.2.tar.bz2 > Perhaps a major glitch here, since portage-2.0.51.20 is the latest version? Jason deployed .20 via distfiles-local to get it into the mirrors prior to adding the ebuild. So why is that file in the list of files that are marked for deletion? Becuase at the time of the run, _no_ ebuild claimed that file. We didn't push the portage ebuild into the tree until .20 tarball was in the mirrors. So it's valid. It's also the reason we wait a full week before actually removing any file from the mirror tier. > Also, will the script be re-run before actual deletions take place? (I'm > tracking down instances of nomirror that shouldn't be there). Yes. I'll be restaggering the deletions to run during the first week it's live, so you've got a week. :) What *can* be done, but requires a damn good reason, is that individual files can have their deletion times screwed with- same way I'm staggering the deletes. That said, I don't care to do it unless requested. Mentioning it, because in special cases/circumstances it may be needed (just the same as in special cases/circumstances, cvs->rsync can be turned off if someone breaks the tree). If a file is marked for deletion, you've got a week from detection to either fix the ebuild, or add an ebuild in- this however is valid. The mirror tier isn't a dumping ground :) ~brian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list