On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:38:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The choice is to either restrict the required client-side fanciness to > > what most of our mirrors are willing to accept, or go without mirrors > > (OK, OK ... fewer mirrors anyway), which is something I don't think we'd > > want. > The whole point of SCC was to go without mirrors. *No*, the point is to not require all mirrors to carry all ports. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
