Multiple pending setup patches

[Buzz]

Op Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:30:34 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski
in <Pine.GSO.4.63.0510161728350.1211@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>:
:  On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Brian Dessent wrote:
:
: > Brian Dessent wrote:
: >
: >> Except, from the standpoint of setup there is no way to distinguish the
: >> following two scenarios:
: >
: > That is, unless you meant "mirror that was manually added *this
: > session*", whereas I was interpreting it to be "user manually entered a
: > non-official mirror at some point in the past and continues to use it
: > each time they run setup."  So we could in fact detect if the user typed
: > or pasted something into the edit box and not prompt; but if they then
: > ran setup again and didn't make any changes they would get the prompt
: > because at that point setup cannot differentiate anymore.
:
:  Brian,
:
:  You are assuming that the format of the last-mirror file is fixed and
:  won't change.  We could keep the fact that the user typed in the mirror
:  URL as opposed to clicking on one of the official ones...
:  	Igor

Would it not be possible to use the cached mirror-list to
differentiate the two cases? (Only warn if a mirror is used which is
in cache but not in new list. Keep the old mirror in the cache if
the user wants to be warned again.)

(I know, SHTDI.)


L8r,

Buzz.
-- 
  ) |  | ---/ ---/  Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
--  |  |   /    /   really is |   and false bits entirely.    | mail for
  ) |  |  /    /    a 72 by 4 +-------------------------------+ any1 but
--  \--| /--- /---  .sigfile. |   |perl -pe "s.u(z)\1.as."    | me. 4^re