Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Dan Meltzer]

On 12/26/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@×××××.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> > > > <genstef@g.o> wrote:
> > > > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
> > > > | keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> > > >
> > > > Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
> > > >
> > > I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well
> > > and has _no_ use for it.
> > >
> > > There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.
> >
> > The complaints was about the cache, not about the actual sync time
>
> Complaints about both actually- try sync'ing on a crap connection.
> Rsync doesn't scale well the larger the dataset gets (the fact it
> still performs well is a testament to it being mostly a damn fine
> tool).  We've got at least a 2.4mB overhead just for doing
> filelist/chksum transfers; that's not getting into pulling the
> _actual_ updates.
>
>
> > This is what, maybe the equivilent of a new ebuild once, and a -rX any
> > time somethings changed? It won't effect much at all and end up being
> > a lot more helpful (and quickly implemented) than waiting around for
> > someone to write a web database and pushing that through.
>
> Quicker balanced against proper; debate right now is if it's the
> proper place to do this (thus address that concern) :)
>
>
> > We have metadata.xml's, why not use them?
>
> We have ebuilds, why don't we stick it there?  Arguement doesn't work
> well there ;)

Because its package specific, not version specific :)

This is one of the reasons metadata came about in the first place.
>
> (No I'm not advocating tagging this into ebuilds btw).
> ~harring
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list