On 2018-03-29 16:19, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > At the same time, we need to consider how MacPorts base will respond to the > situation. Currently, it assumes all packages are available on all mirrors. > Therefore, it tries to find a package on three mirrors before giving up. If > many mirror operators choose to exclude an OS version, this could leave a > user building from source, even when a binary exists on a more-distant > mirror; I want to avoid that. One workaround is to recommend that mirror > operators who exclude some packages should also add http redirects for > excluded packages to their web server configuration, redirecting those > requests back to the main (full) mirror. We can update our sample > configurations on the Mirroring wiki page to reflect this.
We can easily split our definition of mirror_sites and only list the URLs that will provide packages for a particular version. I started looking at #56053 [1] yesterday and I think it would actually be helpful if we would use a configuration file with the same syntax as archive_sites.conf instead of the messy mirror_sites.tcl we have right now, as it makes assumptions about the internals of base. I am not sure either how we could do such a reorganisation without wasting a lot of bandwidth, but we could at least start with the new scheme as of 10.14. >> 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). > > As I understood our libstdc++ to libc++ transition plan for 10.6-10.8 > systems, we will not create new builders. We will instead repurpose existing > builders for libc++, and delete the old libstdc++ archives for 10.6-10.8 > system when we do so. As far as I see based on the ticket [2], we do not have a decision on that yet. Rainer [1] https://trac.macports.org/ticket/56053 [2] https://trac.macports.org/ticket/50448
