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 |