This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH setup v3 0/6] Distinguish between user URLs and cygwin mirrors in UI
On 06/12/2017 22:15, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2017-12-06 14:55, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/6/2017 4:07 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2017-12-06 13:45, Ken Brown wrote:
This is a followup to
in which Jon suggested splitting site selection into two pages, one
for cygwin.com mirrors and one for additional user URLs. The latter
would be visible only if the user had previously checked a suitable
checkbox. This patch series implements that suggestion.
Thanks very much for looking at this.
This looks pretty good.
My main concern is how this deals with private cygwin mirrors. I guess
you need to not select anything at the "choose a mirror page", then tick
"allow sites that are not cygwin.com mirrors" to get to the page that
lets you enter the URL, which is somewhat confusing.
I'm going to guess that private cygwin mirrors are used more than repos
of additional packages.
(Another facet to consider: At the moment, I think we do something like
trying all the keys we know to validate the signature of every setup.ini
we download. It would be nice to maintain an idea of which URLs are
supposed to be validated using the cygwin signing key.)
I guess we could achieve this by keeping the 'Add URL' control on the
mirrors page, but then the migration becomes a big problem (as we don't
know if a URL is a mirror or not until we read it)
(I'm not sure migrating anything not in mirrors.lst to the usersite list
as you currently do is the best idea, as it will migrate the currently
selected mirror if it happens to be stale when we are run?)
The page for mirrors shows the area and location of each mirror, as
suggested by Brian Inglis, but it still uses truncated URLs as before.
[Brian, see the last patch, which is in your name. Feel free to improve
Display area and location of mirrors, and add these to the sort key
I had added Last mirror and User added descriptive prefixes to the
displayed URLs, and uniqueness checks, as you suggested and we discussed,
but then saw your patches, and have been holding off until those land.
Should I still look at adding those prefixes once I can pull the updated sources?
I suggest that we wait and see what happens with my patches. Then we can
discuss what further improvements can be made.
OK by me - I prefer not dealing with code conflicts.
A question about scheduling: I think I'd like to make a new setup
release in the next week or so, to pick up changes accumulated so far,
and perhaps also cherry-picking some of the non-libsolv related changes
which have been accumulating in the topic/libsolv branch.
Too soon? Should I wait for this change to be ready? Any other changes
you'd like to get in?