Re: [WBEL-users] Up2date and WB3.0 Mirrors.
Kris Deugau <[email protected]> Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:05:48 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.whitebox.user |
|---|---|
| Organization | DeepNet |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Brian Thies wrote: > The mirrors for WB3 are badly out of date. only about 40% of the mirrors > that whitebox-mirrors points to are current. For example: > ftp.gtlib.cc.gatech.edu is being deprecated. I can't comment usefully on up2date, but the *hostname* ftp.gtlib.cc.gatech.edu is deprecated (along with a couple of other *.ctlib.cc.gatech.edu hostnames); the *system* has no plans I've seen any indication of to shut down. Remove the "cc" part for current hostnames. They've clearly advertised this in their rsync and FTP banners; they've also posted a fairly prominent notice on their main website. They posted these notices *months* ago. (I can understand why you might not have seen these banners, however; if you're not running manual FTP access, (ir)regularly mirroring content, or visiting the website, they get discarded by yum. Or whichever other tool you use.) FWIW, the links for GTLib on http://www.whiteboxlinux.org *are* current. > jach.hawaii.edu doesnt have > a 3.0 directory. Some smaller mirrors, unfortunately, only carry the latest release, not a growing archive of everything. :/ "Everybody wants the latest and greatest, you know." <g> They may have also only picked up White Box "recently", ie, after the WBEL4 release. > and phantomhosting.com has no whitebox directories at all! *nod* I've noticed a couple of sites drop White Box over the past two years or so; I also started mirroring from one or another site some time ago (mostly to speed up local experiments - netinst over 100-meg LAN links are far faster than DSL). (Sorry, not currently publicly accessible; I would *like* to push it out to a publicly-accessible machine, but the one I could use has somewhat limited overall bandwidth, and Not Enough Disk.) > Any idea of who to talk to to get the mirror list updated? [snip] > My e-mail to [email protected] about a month ago on this topic went > unanswered. I would imagine that's the correct address; aside from the slow and infrequent updates to the website, that email address is still listed. -kgd -- Get your mouse off of there! You don't know where that email has been!