Re: Unable to ftpsync-cron from free.hands.com
David Croft <[email protected]> Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:58:26 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.user.mirrors |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKcwzCJZp_sD0B0Sr-T7K=h-6tT-xnVLGgwNLTU20PtXGRBjaA@mail.gmail.com> |
Here, by the way, is the reason we were using free.hands.com in the first place, from an e-mail from 2017: > http://debian.mirror.uk.sargasso.net/debian/project/trace/debian.mirror.uk.sargasso.net > suggests you're syncing from ftp.uk.debian.org. > > However, we recommend mirrors not sync directly from service aliases > such as ftp.<CC>.debian.org (only http is guaranteed to be available at > ftp.<CC>.d.o sites). Maybe change your config to sync from > the site currently backing ftp.uk, in this case free.hands.com. On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 13:56, David Croft <[email protected]> wrote: > > We are no longer able to sync from free.hands.com (ftp.uk.debian.org) > since 25 January > > ftpsync-cron does a curl of > http://free.hands.com/debian/project/trace/free.hands.com to check the > current version. This worked fine for a long time. > > Now free.hands.com links to ftp.uk.debian.org instead and is no longer > accessible on that URL. That would be okay, except that if I change my > RSYNC_HOST to be ftp.uk.debian.org instead, now ftpsync-cron looks for > http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/project/trace/ftp.uk.debian.org, which > of course does not exist because the machine still considers itself to > be free.hands.com > > Can this please be fixed (and changes like this announced in advance in future)? > > Either the machine needs to consider itself to be ftp.uk.debian.org in > the trace directory, or the http://free.hands.com URLs still need to > work. > > Alternatively ftpsync-cron needs to be amended to allow the RSYNC_HOST > to be different from the "what the host considers itself to be in the > trace directory", although I don't consider this an elegant solution > as then people will need to have to make further guesses as to what > the different hostnames should be and this is brittle against future > upstream changes. > > Or best of all maybe we can finally be allowed to sync from a > syncproxy host so we can have a reliable upstream and not have to > repeatedly disappoint users with mystery issues like this stopping > updates every couple of years until somebody notices and guesses what > the latest upstream should be. > > Regards, > > David > > -- > David Croft