Re: [DISCUSSION] Mirror implementation with isar-bootstrap

[Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:13:00PM +0200, Claudius Heine wrote:
> I didn't suggest changing the mirror here, its just a short report about my
> research in Debian/Ubuntu-native solutions.

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I got your point. Then, I shared our past
experience with httpredir, just to inform people.


> Your method would also have the disadvantage of being much less flexible if
> multiple repositories are used. (Convenient support for multiple
> repositories is one of my reasons for doing all this debootstrapizations.)

With multiple repos, multiple vars would be necessary. Whether it's
inconvenient is a matter of taste. For me, overriding an additive templace in a
config is easier to understand than sedding on the fly without leaving a trail
for the user what exactly has been done; but as already mentioned, mimicking
the upstream has other advantages. So, no objection here.

Before I dig into the upstream docs: Your patch implements the same syntax as
the upstream PREMIRRORS, no?


> What I meant is that such a search and replace method might accidentally
> overwrite Mirrors you didn't want to change.
> 
> For example if you use Debian stretch and jessie repos on the same image.
> The reason doing so might be because you want to use specific packages from
> stretch, but have all other files from jessie.
> For some reason your internal mirror just provides a mirror of the stretch
> distribution. Now its difficult to overwrite just that one entry where
> stretch is used and leave the jessie one in place.
> 
> I disregarded those scenarios with the current patch, but it should be
> possible to change it in a later version if the need arise.

Ah, now I see. I think this is good enough for now.


> No. Matching a whole source list line is to complicated, matching just some
> parts of it makes things easier. I would call myself reasonable experienced
> with regexes, but that format and how it is understood is a bit too much:
...
> Doing the same with one regex is much more painful.

Ok.


With kind regards,
Baurzhan.