Your message dated Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:32:42 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#559355: mirrors: http://www.debian.org/mirror/list
pushed unofficial mirrors not recognized
has caused the Debian Bug report #559355,
regarding [www.debian.org] re-work mirror categories to include pushed
non-ftp.CC.do mirrors
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
559355: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559355
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: mirrors
Severity: minor
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:08:05PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> why don't you list all debian primary mirrors under "Primary Debian
> mirror sites" on http://www.debian.org/mirror/list?
On this page :
- primary actually refers to ftp.CC.d.o mirrors
- secondary refers to remaining mirrors
Definitions is unclear, since pushed mirrors which are not ftp.CC.
actually don't meet any of the definitions.
Given the current infrastructure, using ftp.CC.d.o mirrors actually
gives better guarantees than non-Debian controlled mirrors.
Indeed, Debian can modify ftp.CC.d.o DNS entry if a mirror ever fails.
However, you get a point: we should be able to distinguish pushed
mirrors which are not ftp.CC.d.o ones. (so debian-installer should).
> I am missing i.e. mirrors.se.kernel.org and debian.morphium.info.
>
> According to http://www.de.debian.org/dmc/today/, those are primary mirrors,
> too.
Primary *pushed*.
--
Simon Paillard
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tag -1 wontfix
thanks
I don't think we can / want to distinguish between the third party
mirrors; pushed vs non-pushed is liable to be wrong most of the time,
and isn't easily detectable. Closing.
Cheers,
Julien
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:37:05PM +0100, Simon Paillard wrote:
> Package: mirrors
> Severity: minor
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:08:05PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> > why don't you list all debian primary mirrors under "Primary Debian
> > mirror sites" on http://www.debian.org/mirror/list?
>
> On this page :
> - primary actually refers to ftp.CC.d.o mirrors
> - secondary refers to remaining mirrors
>
> Definitions is unclear, since pushed mirrors which are not ftp.CC.
> actually don't meet any of the definitions.
>
> Given the current infrastructure, using ftp.CC.d.o mirrors actually
> gives better guarantees than non-Debian controlled mirrors.
> Indeed, Debian can modify ftp.CC.d.o DNS entry if a mirror ever fails.
>
> However, you get a point: we should be able to distinguish pushed
> mirrors which are not ftp.CC.d.o ones. (so debian-installer should).
>
> > I am missing i.e. mirrors.se.kernel.org and debian.morphium.info.
> >
> > According to http://www.de.debian.org/dmc/today/, those are primary
> > mirrors, too.
>
> Primary *pushed*.
>
>
> --
> Simon Paillard
>
>
--- End Message ---
