From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11538 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2002 19:50:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11528 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2002 19:50:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2002 19:50:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 5651 invoked by uid 20157); 20 Dec 2002 19:49:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 2002 19:49:46 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:15:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-X-Sender: hp@dair.pair.com To: Christopher Faylor cc: Zack Weinberg , Subject: Re: Just use google for archive searching? In-Reply-To: <20021220162617.GA6277@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:26:48AM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > >On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote: > >>Hans-Peter Nilsson writes: What happened to the idea > >>of using mnogosearch or other alternative? > > > >I guess that question is related to the advent of the new machine. I > >haven't looked into it myself. > > I ran an alternative on the new machine and was surprised by how long it > took to index. *How* long? Hours? Days? Today it's about ten hours from scratch with htdig-3.1.5. (I may be wrong about that, looking at failure logs; I'll follow up with figures from a *successful* run.) With htdig-3.2.x it was *days* before I stopped it. > I've since researched other methods that can be used for > incremental updating so the overall effect won't be as noticeable. > However, it's hard to compare "won't be as noticeable" with "almost no > impact". > > I'm not sure I understand the political issues involved in using google. It's an external resource that you don't have the source for (with a GNU/free license). > Maybe this is an obvious statement but taking the political agenda to > the point of dictating what archiving method can be used is ridiculous. Whatever. Using non-free (as in code) resources for GNU flagship projects has been a no-no in the past... > I suppose I'll have another political battle very soon when we switch > the IP address... I don't understand what significance the number would have. Maybe best that way. Bliss! :-) > Btw, my reason for mentioning this is because of the previously mentioned > problems with htdig and gcc. Thanks. The idea has come up in the past, and I think there was the non-free argument then. brgds, H-P