Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Transports
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:19:43
Message-Id: 429C80D8.9060106@egr.msu.edu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Transports by Brian Harring
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Brian Harring wrote:
5 > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:38:58AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
6 >
7 >>I was looking at Transport code last night and I noticed it only
8 >>supported HTTP/HTTPS/FTP, which I thought was kind of limited. Thoughts
9 >>on merging the Sync code in with Transports, having the transport lib
10 >>covering all...well..file transport code within portage? The Rsync code
11 >>is strikingly similar, and I was thinking of adding scp as well so
12 >>people have a lot of options.
13 >>
14 >>Thoughts, objections...donuts?
15 >
16 > I like cheese. ?
17 >
18 > scp doesn't support resume, so it differs from existing transports if
19 > added. For merging of sync and transports, transports is specifically
20 Bleh, not all FTP is resumable either, depends on server settings IIRC
21 ( although almost all recent servers support it ).
22 > single file network io requests, sync can mangle multiple files.
23 >
24
25 Mostly was looking at a unified transport lib, with connection
26 abstractions, which is basically what we have now, but lacks SCP/RSYNC
27 support, and I think people would want that functionality, Remote repos
28 with rsync for proto fex. That way the remote repo code only depends on
29 Transports and all the proto mess is abstracted away. Maybe just keep
30 em seperate and copy the rsync code? I kind of like the single vs multi
31 approach now that I think about it more :P
32
33 > Dunno, possible.
34 > Honestly sync and transports could use a mild set of touch ups,
35 > although not sure about collapsing/combining the sync/transports bit.
36 > Reasons for it, aside from having a few more protocols able to be
37 > handled? Hadn't thought about the possibility of supporting cvs for
38 > SRC_URI- that would be nifty, although would need a way to specify a
39 > required atom for protocols (if this cpv has cvs://blar in it, it
40 > requires dev-util/cvs, or preferably a virtual should dev-util/cvs
41 > ever move...
42 > ~brian
43 Anything wrong with adding local portage USE flags? :)
44 sys-apps/portage:cvs-transport - Allow CVS to be used for SRC_URI/Binary
45 fetching.
46 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
47 Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
48 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
49
50 iQIVAwUBQpyA2GzglR5RwbyYAQKd7w/+MU16nG4XIj/8h3aCx4dwqfBYwog2HBC2
51 0qAKkJnkiFKz53wWJwzL20XhiUiNlvsSVkH2qcj7w+GoOBEXnQAw4a0oTA+OR0qz
52 A6jrwJ5JKXPG+XISStMFMe/oCeg6j0M6+BRMCgYj0Rx9MfjFfLJOeAtDaXgUoG48
53 MaQhnko6ufmx7Y5OmbznJysEwV76ki47k3m2k7NhLrPa/z/4kfWfhatz4Z7l1pO+
54 2K/MUWVx1vbPZxd+ixxCLeX9MS0sf5Oh5y8R+sNCuCCJYhUp3JA72+SejsZZjudS
55 8cMRpKtfSr5PGijvg61CXUG6MAZcq9rvT1AE4b3Ta7jCJwDBS2GcVSJnMtxLUqWU
56 stqcPUwg/lrSq5necfUPOJF5VLzN0HHhxIsPdvf1rmhDKSuj/9LQlqcHx64b//Hy
57 VEVuit7d8uLxXXlW1IuJ68O2kGlLX08UdBtbIIwHW/hbImoWn1zDlH3fCW6THM9Y
58 KTVClPsveGvhpLLlIRPka4LQ+kbyc2uB4Ap8PHuHbj14SiBH0A6y1cD4KYrB4cb5
59 gIZDbjS74U0biCV8PamaSexlWdG4HiHNLu0IfqpMlUMlr/+SgZoiB8NEJSSajvnE
60 lFhahSdx09lnWSIw8oogQbcL4jsdlP+SXoAM1/YmltZ/jXmggvopXApCfyw9xbbO
61 A2cbCuVuAss=
62 =4t08
63 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
64 --
65 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Transports Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>