Mirror size & completeness of binaries

[Rainer Müller]

On 2018-03-27 13:56, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> I don't know about the best way to do it, but I would like to suggest to
> provide macports mirorring in two different sizes: a small one and a
> complete one.
> 
> While I'm a heavy supporter of providing support for legacy systems, I
> see no reason to mirror files for them on all of our mirrors and cause
> troubles to them. I would suggest to mirror by default just the latest
> version of any given source and binary and only support the latest three
> OSes there. Then we could have additional files to support older systems
> on a smaller set of mirrors, just on those where it would not cause any
> additional troubles to them. Since the number of users of legacy systems
> is much smaller, this should not have a heavy impact on bandwidth to
> that smaller number of mirrors either.
> 
> I'm not saying this should be implemented immediately, but I would
> certainly start thinking about that before we add additional four
> mirrors (three legacy ones and 10.14).

It would probably help if we had a top-level directory for the macOS
version. Mirroring a specific subset of the archives would then be trivial.

I know it is nice to see all packages for a port in one place and it is
easier to check what has already been built. But hopefully we would have
this information on individual port index pages soon.

Rainer