On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:00:50AM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote: > On 27 November 2010 08:27, Andrey Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Backlund <t...@iki.fi> wrote: > >> > >> The idea of this layout with some of the separate sections (codecs, > >> firmware, games, non-free, debug_*) gives a mirror maintainer in a country > >> (or company) the option to exclude the parts they legally (or by company > >> policy) can not mirror. > >> > > > > I wonder how "urpmi.addmedia --distrib > > ftp://server/with/omitted/sections" should be interpreted then. > > > > Also mirror list should be indicating which sections are present; is > > it supported right now? > > > > IMHO, the mirrorlist in its current status should be dropped > altogether... it's only good if the user has good mirrors near where > he lives, otherwise it just fails miserably. The whole point of using > a mirrorlist was that "urpmi will switch to another mirror if the > currently used one fails / can't be reached", that switch doesn't > happen, ("md5sum mismatch" rings a bell?).
In fact, md5 mismatch happen when the md5sum come from one mirror, and the hdlist from another one. This part of the urpmi code is too complex, and I didn't understood exactly the way it should work ( I mean, we could have a method "download" that does the right thing, switch to another mirror, etc, but it seems much more complex and therefor hard to fix ). > At least with the specific media mirrors the user can, more easily, > guess that he can use add another mirror, with mirrorlist most new > users are left clueless. IMHO, that's a bug that must be fixed. I have already attempted, but without any luck. And shall I also remind that this was asked by users ( ie most non new users have no trouble with a single mirror ). So if we remove, some users will ask us again to have it... -- Michael Scherer