| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:22 AM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Mostly because of the recent "trustless infrastructure" thread, I am |
| 4 |
> wondering why we are still distributing the portage tree primarily |
| 5 |
> via rsync instead of git? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Can someone educate me on that, and is it worth considering moving away |
| 8 |
> from rsync distribution? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Here are the pros/cons that I've seen come up in the past: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
1. emerge-webrsync is probably more secure at the moment, because |
| 14 |
emerge --sync with git leaves the tree corrupt if it doesn't verify. |
| 15 |
That seems like something that could be fixed, and which should be |
| 16 |
fixed regardless (presumably somebody just has to do the work - I |
| 17 |
can't imagine the portage team would turn away patches). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
2. git seems to be more efficient for frequent syncing, while rsync |
| 20 |
seems to be more efficient for infrequest syncing. I'd guess the |
| 21 |
crossover is somewhere around a week or few, but I don't have data to |
| 22 |
support that. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
3. we have more rsync mirrors, though with the possibility of using |
| 25 |
mirrors like github I don't see why this matters (as long as we |
| 26 |
actually secure distribution). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
4. by default git tends to accumulate history, which can eat up disk |
| 29 |
space. I imagine this could be automatically trimmed if users wanted, |
| 30 |
though during syncing it would at least need to store all the commits |
| 31 |
between the last fetched and next-fetched, and that means fetching |
| 32 |
things that might have been subsequently removed/changed |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Personally I stick with git. I want the history anyway, and since I |
| 35 |
sync frequently it involves WAY less disk IO and seems to be very |
| 36 |
network-efficient as well. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Rich |
Archives