| 1 |
On Thursday 14 October 2004 4:35 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:30:29 +0000, Luke-Jr <luke-jr@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 14 October 2004 2:49 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:43:11 -0700 Mark Dierolf <mark@×××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > | I've been watching this discussion as far as tree size, and i'm |
| 6 |
> > > | suprised nobody has brought the idea of on-demand downloading yet. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Nobody has mentioned it because it has been discussed and dismissed as |
| 9 |
> > > unworkable several times before. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > It's quite workable. Every binary distro does it. From what I can see, |
| 12 |
> > Portage devs just don't see as much a benefit since the tree is much |
| 13 |
> > smaller than, for example, an entire copy of all binary packages Debian |
| 14 |
> > provides. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Huh? -- name 1 binary distribution that does that? -- all of the ones |
| 17 |
> I tried fetch a list of available packages -- which is exactly what |
| 18 |
> the portage tree provides. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Why would they need a list of available packages? Such a list is useful *only* |
| 21 |
to the user. apt-get, ipkg, and urpmi are going to know the package name |
| 22 |
beforehand. Figuring out the version might be an issue, but nothing that |
| 23 |
can't be solved simply by including a PHP (in the case of HTTP fetching) to |
| 24 |
choose the latest version and include the name in a header. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> > On Thursday 14 October 2004 3:14 pm, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 28 |
> > > So you only have to rsync the dependency info. You save maybe 50% |
| 29 |
> > > traffic, but need some ebuild servers that will be hit by millions of |
| 30 |
> > > small requests for single ebuilds. No thanks. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > Actually, you don't even need to sync that. Simply download the primary |
| 33 |
> > ebuild, read the dep info, download the next one, etc. Most modern |
| 34 |
> > versions of file transfer protocols (HTTP and FTP, at least; don't know |
| 35 |
> > about rsync) support multiple transfers in a single connection. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> How would it know what ebuild to fetch exactly? --- just think about |
| 38 |
> that for a second. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
ebuild doesn't deal with dependencys anyway, AFAIK. emerge would need the |
| 41 |
fetching functionality and could figure out the name based on (originally) |
| 42 |
the user's specification and (for deps) the DEPEND contents themselves. |
| 43 |
Portage *already* needs to know what the name of the package is anyway. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
On Thursday 14 October 2004 4:41 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 46 |
> The part where the HTTP and FTP internals get handled by portage |
| 47 |
> internally, instead of handling them to an external program like wget, |
| 48 |
> are the reason why the idea was dismissed as unworkable several times |
| 49 |
> before. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Not really a good excuse. HTTP isn't an overly complicated protocol. Including |
| 52 |
the fetching functionality also has other advantages, such as one less |
| 53 |
program to depend on (and thus one fewer that can be broken and screw up |
| 54 |
Portage). |
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Luke-Jr |
| 57 |
Developer, Utopios |
| 58 |
http://utopios.org/ |
Archives