| 1 |
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:05:55 -0500 |
| 2 |
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 11/28/2012 09:17 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> We could slightly simplify the handbook installation procedure if we |
| 7 |
> >> told people to use emerge-webrsync to fetch the initial snapshot. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Using emerge-webrsync also makes the installation process more robust, |
| 10 |
> > since it only requires HTTP access (whereas many firewalls restrict |
| 11 |
> > RSYNC). Besides, emerge-webrsync can check PGP signatures, so I think |
| 12 |
> > that it should be the primary recommended portage tree synchronization |
| 13 |
> > method. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The only downside of which I am aware is increased network traffic. |
| 17 |
> However, we could redesign emerge-webrsync to take advantage of GNU |
| 18 |
> Tar's incremental archive functionality. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> That would permit us to mirror compressed diffs in addition to regular |
| 21 |
> portage snapshots. Doing that well could reduce bandwidth requirements. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There's emerge-delta-webrsync but it's mostly hand-work to reconstruct |
| 24 |
the webrsync tarball. Therefore, it is very slow and not worth |
| 25 |
the effort when syncing often. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
However, I'm not aware of gnu tar's incremental archive. If it's much |
| 28 |
faster than the above, then it should probably replace |
| 29 |
emerge-delta-webrsync. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives