On 28 March 2018 at 13:58, Rainer Müller wrote: > On 2018-03-27 13:56, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> I don't know about the best way to do it, but I would like to suggest to >> provide macports mirorring in two different sizes: a small one and a >> complete one. >> >> While I'm a heavy supporter of providing support for legacy systems, I >> see no reason to mirror files for them on all of our mirrors and cause >> troubles to them. I would suggest to mirror by default just the latest >> version of any given source and binary and only support the latest three >> OSes there. Then we could have additional files to support older systems >> on a smaller set of mirrors, just on those where it would not cause any >> additional troubles to them. Since the number of users of legacy systems >> is much smaller, this should not have a heavy impact on bandwidth to >> that smaller number of mirrors either. >> >> I'm not saying this should be implemented immediately, but I would >> certainly start thinking about that before we add additional four >> mirrors (three legacy ones and 10.14). > > It would probably help if we had a top-level directory for the macOS > version. Mirroring a specific subset of the archives would then be trivial.
That would be my point exactly. For the last meeting I brought a full macports mirror with me. I initially wanted to mirror just packages for two or three OSes that participants would brought with them, but it turned out to be non-trivial (I played with include/exclude rules, then gave up and simply mirrored everything). > I know it is nice to see all packages for a port in one place and it is > easier to check what has already been built. But hopefully we would have > this information on individual port index pages soon. Indeed. I don't know about the proper way to do the transition, but maybe we could implement something in version 2.5.0? That would also greatly simplify adding the libc++ packages and I'm pretty sure that we can set something up to have a clear overview about the build process until the switch to 2.5.0. Users who don't upgrade to 2.5.0 immediately would have to build from source for a while, but that's just about the biggest "problem" I can think of. Mojca