| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 15/05/15 12:15 PM, Diamond wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 08:23:27 -0700 Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Michał Górny |
| 9 |
>> <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
>>> Starting with Portage 2.2.19, a new SquashDelta syncing method |
| 11 |
>>> has been introduced. It is meant to provide lightweight and |
| 12 |
>>> efficient solution for stable systems. The whole repository is |
| 13 |
>>> contained within a single pre-generated SquashFS image file. |
| 14 |
>>> The daily snapshot of the repository is first fetched from the |
| 15 |
>>> mirrors, and afterwards updated in-place using deltas (without |
| 16 |
>>> repacking). |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> This sounds nice, but the news item currently leaves me wondering |
| 19 |
>> what sort of improvements I should expect. [...] |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I've read the pdf article of Michał Górny and from my expirience |
| 22 |
> with emerge-delta-webrsync and app-portage/getdelta in the past |
| 23 |
> this good old new feature looks mostly useful for bad Internet |
| 24 |
> connections (too slow or too expensive ones) and looks mostly |
| 25 |
> useless for syncing relative to rsync method from local mirror like |
| 26 |
> I use [...] |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Although this thread should be a review of the news item rather than a |
| 29 |
review of the feature, I think both of these guys have a point. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The main benefit to this new feature is that it allows users to use a |
| 32 |
squashfs image for their gentoo repo (portage tree) without having to |
| 33 |
(re)generate it themselves locally every time they --sync, AND without |
| 34 |
having to re-download an entire image from gentoo mirrors each time |
| 35 |
either. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The new item doesn't really cover this much -- that the feature is for |
| 38 |
supporting storage and synchronization of the gentoo repo on squashfs |
| 39 |
rather than on a regular filesystem. Perhaps it would be enough to |
| 40 |
link to an article describing the benefits of using a squashfs'ed |
| 41 |
portage tree, so users could chose whether they want this or not based |
| 42 |
on that? Similarly, it would probably be good to mention that this |
| 43 |
new feature deprecates squash_portage and the other tools/methods out |
| 44 |
there for doing the same thing locally. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 48 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlVWO9kACgkQ2ugaI38ACPA1vwD9ELIdOgSSTfly3rT5zU6dzhGb |
| 51 |
62LtN8loiRFhKfyAe/8A/24xw95j7qav/himVRA5OOjM3qTE++iBY/2yXPgLWpI5 |
| 52 |
=1+2r |
| 53 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives