Mirror size & completeness of binaries

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Mar 29, 2018, at 20:53, Michael wrote:

> On 2018-03-29, at 7:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:24, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Indeed. I don't know about the proper way to do the transition, but
>>> maybe we could implement something in version 2.5.0? That would also
>>> greatly simplify adding the libc++ packages and I'm pretty sure that
>>> we can set something up to have a clear overview about the build
>>> process until the switch to 2.5.0.
>>> 
>>> Users who don't upgrade to 2.5.0 immediately would have to build from
>>> source for a while, but that's just about the biggest "problem" I can
>>> think of.
>> 
>> Any reorganization of the packages server's directory structure would probably result in all mirrors having to refetch all packages. That would be a huge waste of bandwidth and time and I think we should avoid imposing that on our mirroring partners.
> 
> If I understand what you're saying, how does this sound?
> 
> For 2.5.0: add the ability to add a redirect, which effectively allows a package to be moved. Do not make any attempt to use this until the mirrors have had a chance to update.
> 
> Once all the mirrors have updated to software that supports redirects, then release version 2.6.0, and start implementing redirects. Now you can start to reorganize the directory tree, and instead of re-downloading, the mirrors will just move the packages around to match the redirect.

The mirrors don't run MacPorts; they use rsync.