On 09/19/2010 12:16 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:
On 09/19/2010 04:45 PM, Steve Holmes wrote:
Most distros like to build up their presence and increase the numbers and usage. Obviously if everyone goes out there and attempts to build local mirrors and all, that would put a big drain on the arch package update process. I don't think many people are doubting that and maybe it should be discouraged however. But the withholding of technical knowledge with such arrogance is in poor taste if you ask me. Like others have been saying all along now, the original information was pulled and no technical explanation was ever offered for why it was wrong.
Now because of all this "secrecy" (in appearance), I've increased my curiosity and may look into building a local mirror just so I know how to do it. Had the thing on the wiki site been corrected, I would have probably just read it and kept it in the back of my mind for a day when I would really need to do it.
You have a point when you say that all this discussion will increase the interest in creating a local mirror (for the people that read the mailing list). Some people will think about it a bit more but never try it (too much hassle for something they don't need or use), the ones that really need it will either find a way to do it or have already created a local mirror.
It seems to me that the major point here is the difference between the wiki sort of endorsing a method to do it (which may put an higher load on a mirror, which the maintainer needs to pay for) or the user to come up with a way to do it.
I don't have any doubts that any half decent arch user can do so if he/she wishes/needs to do it (these are the users most likely to need it anyway), but having an example on the wiki that can possibly tax a mirror because the procedure is not the most appropriate and the user trying it just copies the procedures verbatim is just wrong.
Well stated. My feelings 100%