| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Over my dead CVS access. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Grandstanding aside, it is probably best to take this in chunks. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> The all-or-nothing fetch restriction control does seem like a good |
| 8 |
> place to start improving. I could certainly see where that could |
| 9 |
> create needless problems. It just hasn't been much of an issue |
| 10 |
> because fetch restriction is rare. Mirror restriction is likely a |
| 11 |
> bigger problem even if it is somewhat user-invisible. Do we really |
| 12 |
> want to hammer something like dev.gentoo.org for patches that aren't |
| 13 |
> properly mirrored because the original source cannot be? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Trying to get this thread back on track: This part was already |
| 16 |
proposed in bug 371413. I guess the main problem is to come up with a |
| 17 |
good syntax for SRC_URI or RESTRICT. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
"restrict+http:" (as suggested by the OP) is probably not enough |
| 20 |
because it doesn't distinguish between fetch and mirror restriction. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ulrich |
Archives