R P Herrold wrote: > On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Charlie Brady wrote: > >>> Just syncing slowly is what I've heard. > >> I hope that consideration will be given in future releases >> to sync the SRPMS before the binaries, do avoid this time >> skew. > > Let's see -- Perhaps one in 200 people USING CentOS binaries, > use CentOS SRPMs. Next look at the relentless railing and > carping about 'delays' and 'lateness'. Then look at the > negligible (or at least minimal) responses to repeated > requests for donation of additional resources to the project. > > SRPMs first is not likely a course likely to serve the largest > number first, nor cut the pain of having to listen to the the > larger source of thankless, thoughtless whimpering, I'd say > > A person wanting earlier SRPM access probably has to put up > resources to facilitate such a path (I am aware of Shad Lord's > recent mirror offer). More bandwidth at the needed points > [and avoiding fiber cuts] is harder to donate, sadly. > > Mirror flap seems to still be a problem as well, probably due > to some mirrors not syncing against sub-masters properly, but > rather trying to cross-sync, and so confusing inferior > unofficial sub-sub-mirrors that have beenm inprovidently > editted in (based on main IRC channel diagnosis) > > I would be thrilled to have a simultaneous coordinated > release, but the 'leak' of 'patched' torrent instances, and at > least two mirrors opening the full ISO set before the > coordinated bit flip date and time, leave rather a bad outlook > to me as to the ability to make things better through such an > 'inverted as to demand' approach > > My $0.02 .... I'd love to be shown a path to avoid the > problems on the 5.3 roll-out it seems i was not clear enough. i ask it because almost all src.rpm are on the mirror site just anaconda missing so for me it seemed it was forgotten. that's why i wrote the original mail. anyway now it's also uploaded:-) -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"